G.R. No. L-4327. December 15, 1950.

PRICE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, et al., petitioners, vs. OSCAR CASTELO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners (Price Stabilization Corporation, et al.) were the losing parties in a mandamus case decided by the Court of First Instance of Manila. They were notified of the decision on November 13 and 14, 1950. On November 22, 1950, before the expiration of the 15-day period to appeal, the lower court, upon motion of the prevailing party (Chinese Flour Importers Association), issued a special order of execution of the judgment under Section 2, Rule 39. The petitioners had previously filed a notice of appeal and deposited a cash appeal bond of P60 with the clerk of court. They argued that by these acts, the appeal was perfected and the lower court lost jurisdiction to issue the execution order.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court retained jurisdiction to issue the special order of execution despite the petitioners’ filing of a notice of appeal and deposit of a cash appeal bond.

RULING

Yes, the lower court retained jurisdiction and properly issued the order. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The mere filing of a notice of appeal and deposit of a cash bond does not automatically perfect an appeal and divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Under the Rules, an appeal bond (including a cash bond) requires approval by the court. This approval is a requisite for the perfection of an appeal under Sections 5 and 9, Rule 41. Since the cash bond here was deposited without notice to the adverse party and without court approval, the appeal was not perfected. Consequently, the lower court still had jurisdiction and discretion under Section 2, Rule 39 to order execution before the expiration of the appeal period. The Court distinguished its prior ruling in Lopez vs. Lopez, noting that it applied where the court itself had fixed the amount of the cash bond, which was not the case here.

AI Generated by Armztrong.