G.R. No. L-25388, August 31, 1970
Timoteo Simsim, Petitioner, v. The Hon. Judge Feliciano Belmonte of the Court of First Instance of the City of Baguio and Hector Donato, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Timoteo Simsim was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1298, an action for partition of a parcel of land (Lot No. 147-B) against several defendants, including respondent Hector Donato. This case and another related case (Civil Case No. 1276) were jointly tried and decided by respondent Judge Feliciano Belmonte. The trial court’s initial decision, dated July 8, 1965, ordered, among other things, that an additional 11,000 square meters to be given to a party (Felicisimo Mostajo) should be taken from the portion sold to “Timoteo Simsim and/or Hector V. Donato.” Donato filed a motion for reconsideration on July 29, 1965, which was denied. He then filed a second motion for reconsideration on August 13, 1965, which was granted. On August 30, 1965, the court amended its decision, now ordering that the additional 11,000 square meters be taken solely from the portion sold to Timoteo Simsim and declaring Donato as the absolute owner of his portion without reduction. Meanwhile, on August 13, 1965 (the same day Donato filed his second motion), Simsim filed his record on appeal and appeal bond, which the court approved. On August 31, 1965, the court, acting on its own motion, ordered Simsim to amend his record on appeal to incorporate the order amending the decision. Simsim refused, arguing the court lost jurisdiction after approving his appeal. The court, on October 4, 1965, set aside its order approving the record on appeal and directed Simsim to amend it. Simsim filed this certiorari petition challenging that order.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in setting aside its approval of Simsim’s record on appeal and ordering its amendment to incorporate the amended decision, after the appeal was allegedly perfected.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed. The Court held that while Rule 41, Section 9 states the trial court loses jurisdiction upon approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond, this rule must be construed reasonably with other rules. Donato’s second motion for reconsideration was filed on time (within the period for perfecting an appeal) under Rule 37. The order amending the decision was issued while the court still had jurisdiction. To allow Simsim’s appeal to proceed based on the original, superseded decision would be impractical, as it would place before the appellate court a decision that had been set aside and was no longer executable. It would also allow one party to deprive another of the right to seek reconsideration by hastily perfecting an appeal. The proper procedure would have been for the trial court to defer approval of Simsim’s appeal until the motion for reconsideration was resolved. Its premature approval was an inadvertent error that it could correct, and its order to amend the record on appeal to reflect the real decision was within its power.