GR L 2944; (January, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2944; January 31, 1950
JULIA MANUELA LICHAUCO and MIGUELA ZAMORA, petitioners, vs. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of the Court of the First Instance of Pangasinan, and MANUEL JOSE LICHAUCO, respondents.
FACTS
In a prior case, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan rendered a judgment ordering Manuel Jose Lichauco to acknowledge Julia Manuela Lichauco as his natural child and provide support. Manuel Jose Lichauco appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 8635). During the pendency of the appeal, the records in the Court of Appeals were totally destroyed in the battle for the liberation of Manila. Neither party applied for reconstitution of the destroyed records. The appellees (petitioners herein) filed a motion in the CFI for execution of the judgment, arguing that the appellant’s failure to seek reconstitution within the period fixed by the Court constituted abandonment of the appeal, rendering the judgment final and executory. Judge Mañalac granted the motion and ordered execution. Later, Judge Lucero, upon a motion for reconsideration (filed out of time), set aside Judge Mañalac’s order and quashed the writ of execution. The appellees then filed the present action for certiorari to annul Judge Lucero’s order.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance retained jurisdiction to order execution of its judgment pending appeal after the records in the appellate court were destroyed and neither party sought reconstitution.
RULING
No. The petition for certiorari is denied. Once an appeal is perfected and the case is elevated to the appellate court, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case. The CFI’s order for execution pending appeal was void for lack of jurisdiction and could be set aside at any time. The appellant’s failure to seek reconstitution of the destroyed records did not alone constitute abandonment of the appeal; the duty to reconstitute devolves upon both parties. Moreover, it is the appellate court, not the trial court, that has the authority to determine whether an appeal has been abandoned. However, in the interest of justice, and since the original record in the CFI remained intact, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant to prosecute the appeal anew, giving him thirty days to do so. (Justice Paras dissented on this point, arguing that under the Reconstitution Law, the parties’ failure to timely move for reconstitution required the filing of a new action, not a revival of the old appeal.)
AI Generated by Armztrong.