GR 93234; (March, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93234 March 16, 1992
PEDRO S. RAVELO and CARMEN TAN RAVELO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and NATIONWIDE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment and/or reformation of contract against private respondent Nationwide Distributors, Inc. concerning a deed of absolute sale with assumption of mortgage and a contract of lease over a house and lot. The trial court rendered a decision on June 13, 1989, declaring the contracts valid and ordering petitioners to vacate the property, pay monthly rentals, and pay attorney’s fees. Private respondent received the decision on June 23, 1989, and petitioners on June 26, 1989. On July 4, 1989, private respondent filed a motion for execution pending appeal. On July 7, 1989, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision. On February 5, 1990, the trial court issued an Order granting the motion for execution pending appeal and denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners received this Order on February 19, 1990, and filed a notice of appeal on February 21, 1990. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court lost jurisdiction to enforce the writ of execution pending appeal upon the perfection of their appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether an order granting a motion for execution pending appeal may be enforced by the trial court after the perfection of the appeal.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that the order granting execution pending appeal was issued within the prescribed period before the appeal was perfected. The motion for execution pending appeal was filed on July 4, 1989, and the order granting it was issued on February 5, 1990, both occurring before petitioners perfected their appeal by filing their notice of appeal on February 21, 1990. Under Section 23 of the Interim Rules, the perfection of appeal occurs upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party; the trial court retains jurisdiction until then. Since the order for execution pending appeal was validly issued while the court had jurisdiction, it can be executed or implemented even after the filing of the notice of appeal. The execution merely carries out a pre-existing order. To hold otherwise would negate the power granted to trial courts by Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Court cited Naredo vs. Yatco, which ruled that trial courts have jurisdiction to issue orders for the execution of a judgment to carry out a pre-existing order even after the record on appeal has been approved.