GR L 77353; (July, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-77353; July 30, 1987
Associated Bank, petitioner, vs. Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch VIII; Role, Inc. and Romeo R. Echauz, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Associated Bank filed a complaint for sum of money against private respondents. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the bank on November 3, 1986. Respondent Role, Inc. filed a notice of appeal on November 6, 1986, and respondent Echauz filed his own notice on November 24, 1986. Meanwhile, on November 19, 1986, the petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal.
The respondent judge issued an order on December 16, 1986, denying the motion for execution pending appeal. The court reasoned that the notices of appeal had been seasonably filed and given due course through previous orders, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction to act on the motion for execution. The petitioner sought certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul this order and compel the trial court to resolve its motion.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court loses its jurisdiction to act on a motion for execution pending appeal upon the filing and approval of a notice of appeal by the adverse party.
RULING
No. The trial court retains jurisdiction to resolve a motion for execution pending appeal even after a notice of appeal has been filed and approved, provided the period for appeal has not lapsed for all parties. The respondent court’s order was based on a mistaken premise. Under Section 23 of the Interim Rules, which implements Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the perfection of an appeal occurs upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party. The removal of the record on appeal as a requirement means the entire original record is transmitted later, and jurisdiction is not automatically lost upon one party’s filing of a notice.
The Court, citing Universal Far East Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Simsim v. Belmonte, emphasized that allowing one party to divest the court of jurisdiction by immediately filing an appeal would deprive the other party of the right to seek reconsideration or execution pending appeal, leading to impractical and absurd consequences. This principle, established in People v. Ursua, ensures that all parties retain their procedural rights within their respective appeal periods. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the order, and directed the trial court to resolve the motion for execution pending appeal.