GR 101374; (July, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101374 July 30, 1993.
FORTUNE LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
In Civil Case No. 85-29991, the Regional Trial Court of Manila rendered judgment in favor of Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. against Fortune Life and General Insurance Co., Inc. Delsan filed a motion for execution pending appeal, supported by a bond conditioned to answer for damages if the judgment was reversed on appeal. The trial court granted the motion and issued a writ. Fortune Life’s petition to set aside this writ was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. After the execution was deemed improvident, Fortune Life filed an application for damages against the bond before the trial court. Delsan opposed this, citing Section 5, Rule 39. The trial court proceeded to receive evidence on the application. Delsan later filed motions assailing the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear the damage application after Fortune Life had perfected its appeal of the main decision. The trial court denied these motions, ruling it retained jurisdiction to hear the collateral matter of damages on the bond. Delsan then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which annulled the trial court’s orders and directed it to elevate the records, holding it had lost jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Upon perfection of petitioner’s appeal of the trial court’s decision, does said court retain jurisdiction to hear the application for damages against the bond that was posted in support of private respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal?
RULING
No. The petition is denied. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The general rule is that once an appeal is perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case. The exceptions under Section 9, Rule 41 (such as issuing orders for the protection and preservation of rights not involved in the appeal) do not apply. The application for damages against the bond, while collateral, does not involve a right requiring “protection and preservation” by the trial court at that stage. Furthermore, the bond itself was conditioned to answer for damages only if the judgment was reversed on appeal, a condition not yet realized. The trial court had no more jurisdiction to issue the disputed orders as the case was under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The doctrine of estoppel by laches does not apply, as the respondent timely raised the jurisdictional issue. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be acquired through or waived by the parties’ acts.