G.R. No. L-12646; April 30, 1958
VICTORIA D. MIAILHE, MONIQUE M. SICHERE, ELIANE M. DE LENCQUESING, and WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE, petitioners, vs. RUFINO P. HALILI, JOSEFINA PUNZALAN, and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 22152 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, judgment was rendered in favor of defendants Victoria D. Miailhe, et al. (petitioners) against plaintiff Rufino P. Halili, ordering Halili to pay them a sum of money. Halili appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the trial court granted the petitioners’ application for a writ of execution pending appeal after Halili failed to furnish a supersedeas bond. Halili and his wife Josefina Punsalan then filed a petition for certiorari with prohibition and preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals (C.A.- G.R. No. 20328 -R) seeking to nullify the writs of execution, alleging the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals gave due course to the petition and issued a preliminary injunction. The petitioners moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, but the Court of Appeals refused, holding that although the main case involved an amount beyond its jurisdiction, the issue in the certiorari petition was simply the alleged grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari (C.A.- G.R. No. 20328 -R) seeking to nullify the writs of execution issued by the trial court pending appeal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in holding it had jurisdiction. Under Section 30 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, and Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to issue writs like certiorari is limited to cases where such issuance would be “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.” This means the Court of Appeals can issue such writs only if it has appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of error, the final orders or decisions of the lower court. In this case, the judgment in the main case (Civil Case No. 22152) involved an amount (P77,400, exclusive of damages and interests) beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and the appeal therefrom was properly pending before the Supreme Court (docketed as G.R. No. L-13229). Since the Court of Appeals had no appellate jurisdiction over the main judgment, it could have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to enjoin its execution pending appeal, as such issuance would not be in aid of an appellate jurisdiction it did not possess. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of C.A.- G.R. No. 20328 -R for lack of jurisdiction and declared all orders issued therein by the Court of Appeals null and void.