GR L 2944; (January, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2944; January 31, 1950
JULIA MANUELA LICHAUCO and MIGUELA ZAMORA, petitioners, vs. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of the Court of the First Instance of Pangasinan, and MANUEL JOSE LICHAUCO, respondents.
FACTS
In a prior case, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan ordered Manuel Jose Lichauco to acknowledge Julia Manuela Lichauco as his natural child and provide support. Manuel Jose appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). During the appeal, the CA records were totally destroyed in the battle for Manila’s liberation. Neither party applied for reconstitution. Later, the appellees (petitioners here) moved in the CFI for execution of the judgment, arguing the appellant’s failure to seek reconstitution constituted abandonment of the appeal, making the CFI judgment final. Judge Mañalac granted execution. Subsequently, Judge Lucero, upon a belated motion for reconsideration, set aside Judge Mañalac’s order and quashed the writ. The appellees then filed this certiorari action to annul Judge Lucero’s order.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance retained jurisdiction to order execution of its judgment pending appeal after the appellate court’s records were destroyed.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. Once an appeal is perfected and pending in the appellate court, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case. The CFI’s order for execution pending appeal was void for lack of jurisdiction and could be set aside at any time. The appellant’s failure to seek reconstitution did not alone constitute abandonment of the appeal; the duty to reconstitute devolves upon both parties. Furthermore, only the appellate court (CA) could determine if the appeal was abandoned. However, considering the original CFI record remained intact, the Supreme Court, serving the interests of justice, allowed the appeal to be prosecuted anew. Appellant Manuel Jose Lichauco was given thirty days to bring his appeal to the CA. (Justice Paras dissented, arguing that under the Reconstitution Law, failure to timely reconstitute requires a new action, not a revival of the old appeal.)
AI Generated by Armztrong.