G.R. No. 149754, September 17, 2002
Mortimer F. Cordero, Petitioner, vs. Alan G. Go, Felipe Landicho, and Vincent Tecson, Respondents.

FACTS

On May 31, 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 85, rendered a judgment by default in Civil Case No. Q-98-35332, ordering respondents Alan Go, Felipe Landicho, and Vincent Tecson, jointly and solidarily with Tony Robinson, to pay petitioner Mortimer F. Cordero damages totaling P19,291,352.04. Petitioner received the decision on June 19, 2000, and respondents received theirs on June 29, 2000. Prior to receipt, on June 14, 2000, petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal. Respondents opposed this motion and filed a motion for new trial. On July 28, 2000, the RTC granted petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal and denied respondents’ motion for new trial, citing reasons including an impending bankruptcy proceeding against a co-defendant and respondents’ attempts to evade judgment by disposing of properties. The RTC issued a writ of execution on August 21, 2000, leading to garnishment of bank accounts and levy on properties. Respondents filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2000. Initially denied due course for late docket fee payment, the RTC reconsidered and gave due course to the appeal on November 29, 2000. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on September 29, 2000, staying the execution. After the TRO expired, petitioner filed various motions to implement the writ, but the RTC, in its order of December 18, 2000, denied these motions, stating it had lost jurisdiction due to the perfection of respondents’ appeal and directed parties to raise the matter before the CA. The CA, in its decision dated January 29, 2001, granted respondents’ petition for certiorari and set aside the RTC’s orders for execution pending appeal, which the CA subsequently affirmed in a resolution dated August 31, 2001.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court lost its jurisdiction to issue and implement the order for execution pending appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that under Rule 39, Section 2(a) and Rule 41, Section 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court may order execution pending appeal only while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of the original record. Although the RTC had jurisdiction when it initially ordered execution pending appeal, the subsequent perfection of respondents’ appeal and the elevation of the records to the CA divested the RTC of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the enforcement of the execution order was effectively restrained by the CA’s TRO. The trial court correctly held that it had no more jurisdiction to act on the implementation of the execution order after the appeal was perfected and the records were transmitted. The Court also found no merit in petitioner’s ancillary claims regarding procedural defects in respondents’ CA petition and the CA’s failure to resolve certain motions, as these had already been addressed by the CA.