GR L 27252; (May, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27252 May 22, 1968
FELIPE IMPERIAL, petitioner, vs. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, JUDGE PERFECTO R. PALACIO, Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Tenth Judicial District and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, CAMARINES SUR, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Felipe Imperial was the lessee of a lot owned by respondent Roman Catholic Archbishop of Nueva Caceres in Naga City, on which he had constructed a building. In an action for rescission of the lease contract (Civil Case No. 5292), the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur rendered judgment for the plaintiff, declaring the contract rescinded, ordering Imperial to vacate, to pay monthly compensation for use and occupation, and awarding damages. Imperial appealed. Before his record on appeal was approved, the trial court, upon the plaintiff’s motion, issued an order dated May 6, 1966, for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, but allowed Imperial to stay the execution by posting a supersedeas bond and depositing monthly rentals. On February 22, 1967, Imperial filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court, alleging he had appealed to the Supreme Court. It was later revealed that the appeal in the main case was actually taken to the Court of Appeals and was perfected upon approval of the record on appeal on December 10, 1966.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should take cognizance of the petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the trial court’s order for execution pending appeal, given that the main case is on appeal before the Court of Appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. The Court ruled that the questions raised regarding the order for execution of the judgment are incidental to the appeal and should be addressed to the Court of Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. No question affecting the trial court’s jurisdiction was involved; at most, the order might involve an error in judgment but not an absence of jurisdiction, as it was issued before the perfection of the appeal. An orderly procedure dictates that writs incidental to the judgment be issued by the Court of Appeals where the case is pending review. The petition was dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.