G.R. No. L-46763 February 28, 1978
ANTONIO VASCO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LEONOR INES LUCIANO, as Presiding Judge of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Quezon City; NICANOR SALAYSAY, as Sheriff for the Province of Rizal, and ANGELINA REYES Y BAJACAN, REYNALDO VASCO and LOLITA VASCO, respondents.

FACTS

The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City declared Reynaldo and Lolita Vasco as the illegitimate children of Antonio Vasco and ordered him to pay monthly support. Antonio Vasco perfected his appeal to the Court of Appeals on January 6, 1977. The trial court approved his record on appeal on April 21, 1977, and the records were elevated. Subsequently, on June 22, 1977, the children filed a motion for execution of the support judgment pending appeal. The trial court granted this motion on July 13, 1977. Antonio Vasco challenged this order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which upheld the execution, citing substantial justice and the state’s role as parens patriae. The appellate court characterized the trial court’s action as a mere error of judgment, not a grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to order execution of its judgment for support pending appeal after the perfection of the appeal and the approval of the record on appeal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and annulled the trial court’s order of execution pending appeal. The legal logic is anchored on the jurisdictional consequences of a perfected appeal. Under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case upon perfection of the appeal, retaining only limited authority for specific purposes such as preserving the rights of the parties or proving compromises. An order for execution pending appeal directly involves the very matter litigated in the appeal—the enforceability of the judgment for support—and thus falls outside these narrow exceptions. The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the lower court: Garcia vs. Court of Appeals involved support pendente lite (provisional and immediately executory), while Hamoy vs. Batingolo concerned execution against a non-party. The general rule that an appeal stays execution applies. The trial court’s error was not a simple error of judgment but an act in excess of jurisdiction, making certiorari an appropriate remedy. The Court further noted that the doctrine of parens patriae was inapplicable as the recipients were no longer minors, and while substantial justice is a goal, it must be achieved within the framework of procedural rules that ensure orderly administration and prevent arbitrariness. The proper recourse for support during the appeal would have been a petition for support pendente lite filed with the appellate court.