G.R. No. 29178 , March 6, 1928
CHUA A. H. LEE, petitioner, vs. EMILIO MAPA, as auxiliary judge of first instance presiding over the third branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, CORNELIO CRUZ, and his wife CIRIACA SERRANO DE CRUZ, respondents.

DOCTRINE:
A trial court retains jurisdiction to stay the execution of a judgment, even after its affirmance by the Supreme Court, when the grounds for the stay are based on facts or circumstances that arose subsequent to the judgment and the remand of the case, and when such action is taken to conform to law and justice, provided it does not constitute a review or reversal of the higher court’s decision.

FACTS

1. Petitioner Chua A. H. Lee obtained a favorable money judgment in Civil Case No. 30569 against respondents Cornelio Cruz and his wife. The judgment, rendered by Judge Harvey, ordered the defendants to pay a sum of money and declared that upon their default, the pledged properties specified in the loan contracts (Exhibits C and E) would be sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment.
2. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal (G.R. No. 27985).
3. After the record was remanded, the trial court issued a writ of execution on November 22, 1927, against the general properties of the defendants, without specific mention of the pledged property.
4. The defendants (Cruz spouses) moved for and were initially granted a 30-day stay to raise funds.
5. Subsequently, the Cruz spouses filed a separate civil action (Case No. 32865) against Chua A. H. Lee for damages, alleging that the plaintiff, as pledgee, failed to preserve the validity of the pawn tickets by not paying the premiums, causing their loss.
6. Based on this new action, the Cruz spouses filed a motion in the original case (No. 30569) to stay execution pending the final determination of their damage suit. Judge Opisso granted the stay upon the filing of a P7,000 bond. Judge Mapa later denied Chua A. H. Lee’s motion for reconsideration.
7. Chua A. H. Lee filed this petition for prohibition, arguing that the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in granting the stay of execution after the Supreme Court had affirmed its judgment.

ISSUE

Did the trial court (through Judges Opisso and Mapa) act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in granting a stay of execution of a final and affirmed judgment based on circumstances arising after the remand of the case?

RULING

NO, the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. The petition for prohibition is denied.

1. The General Rule and Its Exception: The Court reaffirmed the doctrine from *Shioji vs. Harvey* and related cases that a lower court cannot review, interpret, or interfere with matters already decided by the appellate court. However, it clarified that this rule is not absolute. The Court cited its own language in *Cabigao and Izquierdo vs. Del Rosario and Lim* acknowledging that “circumstances might arise subsequent to the return of a case from the Supreme Court to the trial court which might justify postponement of the execution.”

2. Application to the Case: The defense now raised by the Cruz spousesthat the pledgee failed to preserve the pledged property, giving rise to a claim for damageswas a matter that could not have been foreseen during the trial of the original case. The circumstances invoked (the alleged loss of the pledges due to the pledgee’s inaction) arose subsequent to the Supreme Court’s affirmance and the remand of the record. Therefore, the stay of execution was not an attempt to reinterpret or reverse the Supreme Court’s judgment but was based on new, post-judgment facts.

3. Inherent and Statutory Powers of the Court: The trial court’s action was justified under its incidental power to amend and control its processes to make them conformable to law and justice (Sec. 11, No. 7, Code of Civil Procedure) and its discretionary power to stay execution by special order (Sec. 144, Code of Civil Procedure). The Court noted that a stay may be allowed on equitable grounds arising after judgment, such as to allow a set-off, and this power persists even after affirmance by a higher court.

4. Conclusion: The trial judges acted advisedly and within the bounds of their jurisdiction. The writ of prohibition, being an extraordinary remedy to correct acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, was not warranted.