G.R. No. L-57343. July 23, 1990.
LUISA ECHAUS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, EMILIO GONZALES and VIVIAN GONZALES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Luisa Echaus was the defendant in a collection case filed by spouses Emilio and Vivian Gonzales. The trial court rendered a judgment against her. Echaus filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a motion for extension to file a record on appeal. The trial judge, however, denied the appeal and later issued a writ of execution. Echaus successfully petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus, which ordered the trial judge to give due course to her appeal. This decision became final after the Supreme Court denied the spouses’ petition for review. Subsequently, Echaus filed a motion to transmit the record on appeal. At the hearing, the trial judge allegedly verbally approved the record on appeal, as suggested by a notation on the court calendar. However, the written order released later that same day held the approval in abeyance pending resolution of the spouses’ separate motion for execution pending appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial judge’s alleged verbal approval of the record on appeal, prior to the issuance of a written order deferring such approval, constituted a valid and effective approval that perfected the appeal and divested the trial court of jurisdiction.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that no valid approval of the record on appeal occurred. The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that a judgment or order attains juridical existence only when set down in writing, signed by the judge, and duly promulgated. A mere oral pronouncement or a handwritten notation on a court calendar does not constitute the requisite formal order. The written order, which was the only official act of the court, clearly deferred approval. Consequently, the appeal was not perfected, and the trial court retained jurisdiction to resolve pending incidents, including the motion for execution pending appeal. The Court further clarified that while a trial court loses jurisdiction over a case upon the perfection of an appeal, such perfection requires the issuance of a formal written order approving the record on appeal and the expiration of the time to appeal. Here, since no such written approval was issued, jurisdiction remained with the trial court. The Court of Appeals correctly found no willful disregard of its earlier mandamus decision, as that decision only commanded the judge to act on the appeal, not to approve the record on appeal immediately without regard to proper procedure and other pending motions.