GR L 77632; (June, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-77632 June 8, 1988
ABE INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAMON AM. TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BR. VI OF THE R.T.C. OF CEBU, ERLINDA LEONARDO, AS ADMINISTRATRIX, ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Erlinda Leonardo, as administratrix of her deceased husband’s estate, filed a complaint for recovery of property against petitioners Abe Industries, Inc., et al., before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. After trial, the RTC rendered a judgment in favor of Leonardo on October 29, 1985. Petitioners received their copy of the decision on November 7, 1985, and filed a notice of appeal on November 14, 1985. The trial court gave due course to this appeal and ordered the elevation of the records to the appellate court on November 25, 1985.
Meanwhile, on November 19, 1985, respondent Leonardo filed a motion for partial execution of the decision pending appeal. Petitioners opposed this motion, arguing that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of their appeal. Despite this opposition, the trial court issued a special order on December 19, 1985, granting the partial execution pending appeal, subject to the filing of a bond. The Court of Appeals sustained this order.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant a motion for execution pending appeal after it had given due course to the petitioners’ appeal and ordered the elevation of the records to the appellate court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the trial court’s jurisdiction to issue the order for execution pending appeal. The Court clarified the application of Section 23 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines relative to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which states that the perfection of an appeal occurs “upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party.”
The legal logic is that jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal is determined by the reglementary periods for appeal applicable to each party individually, not by the act of one party perfecting its appeal. Here, petitioners received the decision on November 7, 1985, and their 15-day period to appeal expired on November 22, 1985. They perfected their appeal by filing their notice on November 14, 1985. However, respondent Leonardo received the decision earlier, on November 4, 1985, making her last day to appeal November 19, 1985. Her motion for execution pending appeal was filed on that final day, November 19, 1985. Consequently, the trial court retained jurisdiction to rule on her motion because her own period to appeal had not yet expired when the motion was filed. The Court emphasized that the clause “the last day to appeal by any party” refers to the individual deadlines of each litigant. Thus, the trial court acted within its jurisdiction, and the order for execution pending appeal was validly issued.