Alkuino v. Arrieta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case consolidates three separate quo warranto petitions filed in the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon. The first petition, filed on January 13, 1963, challenged the right of Eusebio Pabualan, et al. to hold positions in the Municipality of Dangcagan. The second, filed on January 19, 1963, disputed the right of Lucilo Alkuino, et al. to hold positions in the Municipality of Valencia. The third, filed on January 2, 1963, questioned the right of Marcelo Ramirez to hold the position of secretary in the Municipality of Valencia. All petitions alleged that the respondents were unlawfully occupying these positions. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bukidnon consolidated the three quo warranto cases for joint trial. On June 7, 1963, the court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners in all three cases, upholding their right to the disputed positions and awarding them back salaries and emoluments. Copies of the decision were served on June 10, 1963. On the afternoon of June 10, the petitioners (original respondents) filed an urgent motion for execution. The following day, June 11, the respondents (original petitioners) filed their notices of appeal and cash bonds. Despite the appeal, the court a quo granted the motion for execution on July 10, 1963, citing special reasons. The respondents then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the court a quo had lost jurisdiction after the appeal was perfected. The Petition: The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to nullify the order of the court a quo granting immediate execution of its decision. They contend that the court lost jurisdiction over the cases on June 11, 1963, when they filed their notices of appeal and cash bonds, thereby perfecting their appeal. They argue that the court a quo should have been divested of its jurisdiction, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties not involving any matter litigated by the appeal, as per Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The core of their argument is that the motion for execution, filed on June 10, was rendered void by the subsequent perfection of the appeal on June 11.
Issue(s)
Whether the court a quo lost jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of the notice of appeal and cash bonds before it granted the motion for execution. Whether there were sufficient special reasons to justify the immediate execution of the decision.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The writ of injunction issued by this Court is dissolved. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of loss of jurisdiction: The Court held that the court a quo did not lose jurisdiction. The urgent motion for execution was filed on June 10, 1963, before any notice of appeal was filed. The notice of appeal and cash bonds were filed on June 11, 1963. The Court emphasized that the mere filing of a notice of appeal and cash bonds does not automatically divest the trial court of its jurisdiction, especially when a motion for execution was already pending. To hold otherwise would allow a party to nullify a motion already placed within the court's jurisdiction by simply filing an appeal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that for cash bonds, mere deposit is insufficient; notice to the adverse party and court approval are necessary for the appeal to be perfected and for the court to lose jurisdiction. In this case, it did not appear that the appeal bonds had been approved by the court a quo when it acted on the motion for execution. On the issue of special reasons for immediate execution: The Court found that there were strong and compelling reasons justifying immediate execution. The court a quo noted that since June 1962, a state of confusion had ensued in the municipalities concerned due to two sets of officials claiming rightful entitlement to office. This led to disputes over official matters, the performance of duties by two police chiefs, and the referral of criminal complaints to the constabulary. The controversy in Dangcagan even required the intervention of the Provincial Commander and Fiscal to prevent bloodshed. The continued chaos pending appeal would aggravate the injury to public service, which could not be allowed.
Main Doctrine
A motion for execution filed before the perfection of an appeal, even if the notice of appeal is filed the following day, does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to act on the motion for execution, provided there are special reasons justifying immediate execution. The perfection of an appeal requires not only the filing of the notice of appeal and cash bond but also the approval of the bond by the court.