GR 45335; (January, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45335. January 31, 1978.
TEOFISTA DE CASTRO BALAJADIA, ELPIDIA DE CASTRO, CRISANTA DE CASTRO, EFRENA DE CASTRO, ROGELIO DE CASTRO and JUAN DE CASTRO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE GREGORIO G. PINEDA, Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch XXI, PANTALEON STO. DOMINGO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the De Castro heirs, filed a complaint for reconveyance of a registered lot in Morong, Rizal, against respondent Pantaleon Sto. Domingo. The trial court dismissed their complaint and ordered them to pay damages. Petitioners perfected their appeal, and the trial court approved their record on appeal, which was subsequently elevated to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court then gave notice for the payment of docket fees and the printing of the record on appeal.
After the record had been transmitted to the Court of Appeals, respondent Sto. Domingo filed a motion in the trial court for reconsideration of the approval of the record on appeal, alleging omissions. The trial court granted the motion and directed petitioners to amend their record. This placed petitioners’ counsel in a dilemma between complying with the trial court’s order to amend and the appellate court’s directive to print the original record. Petitioners failed to print the record, leading the Court of Appeals to dismiss their appeal. The trial court then, upon motion, issued writs of execution and possession.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to order the amendment of the record on appeal after it had been approved and elevated to the Court of Appeals, and consequently, whether the dismissal of the appeal and the issuance of the writs of execution were valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, annulling the assailed orders and writs and reinstating the appeal. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of jurisdiction upon perfection of appeal. Once an appeal is perfected and the record on appeal is approved and transmitted to the appellate court, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, except for limited purposes not applicable here, such as preserving the rights of the parties or approving compromises before transmittal.
Here, the trial court’s order directing the amendment of the record on appeal was issued coram non judice (without jurisdiction), as jurisdiction had already passed to the Court of Appeals. The proper remedy for Sto. Domingo, if he believed the record was incomplete, was to move before the Court of Appeals for its completion under the Rules. The trial court’s void order created confusion, directly causing petitioners’ failure to print the record and the subsequent dismissal of their appeal. This constituted a denial of due process. Therefore, to serve justice and fair play, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and the writs, and reinstated the appeal, ordering a new period for printing the record.