Cabungcal v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns an ejectment action initiated by Daisy Gustilo against the spouses Juan and Isabel Cabungcal. The Municipal Court of Bacolod City initially ruled against the Cabungcals. Subsequently, the case was appealed to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, which also rendered a judgment against the petitioners after a trial de novo. Procedural History: Following the adverse judgment from the Court of First Instance on October 27, 1959, and the denial of their motion for reconsideration on November 23, 1959, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal. Respondent Gustilo moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the judgment was executory. The Court of First Instance initially denied this motion and approved the record on appeal and bond on December 22, 1959. However, on December 29, 1959, the same court set aside its prior order approving the appeal, citing numerous errors in the record on appeal raised by respondent Gustilo. The Petition: The petitioners, Juan and Isabel Cabungcal, filed an original action for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court. They seek to annul the December 29, 1959 order of the respondent Judge, contending that the order is void because the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of their appeal. They also requested a preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge lost control and jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeal by the petitioners. Whether the respondent Judge erred in setting aside his order approving the petitioners' record on appeal and appeal bond.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and mandamus is dismissed. The order of the respondent Judge setting aside his previous order approving the record on appeal and appeal bond is valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of loss of jurisdiction upon perfection of appeal: The Court clarified that while a trial court loses jurisdiction over its judgment and cannot vacate the same after the perfection of an appeal, this principle does not apply to the order complained of. The order in question did not vacate the judgment of the lower court nor did it affect the issues involved in the appeal. The Court emphasized that the determinative provisions are Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which allow the trial court to dismiss an appeal on enumerated grounds even after its perfection but before transmittal of the record. If the trial court can dismiss an appeal, it can a fortiori set aside its order approving the record on appeal and appeal bond. This is to allow further inquiry into the completeness or correctness of the record on appeal, especially when allegations of errors are raised by the opposing party. The Court found the petitioners' contention to be without merit. On the issue of the respondent Judge's error in setting aside the approval order: The Court found no error in the respondent Judge's action. The setting aside of the order approving the record on appeal and appeal bond was done to allow the appellants an opportunity to respond to the allegations of errors contained in the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent. This action is a less serious matter than dismissing the appeal itself, and is consistent with the trial court's residual authority to ensure the proper transmittal of the record for appellate review. Therefore, the respondent Judge did not lose jurisdiction to reconsider his approval order under these circumstances.
Main Doctrine
A trial court retains jurisdiction to set aside its order approving a record on appeal and appeal bond, even after the perfection of the appeal, to further inquire into the completeness or correctness of the record on appeal, as this is a less serious matter than dismissing the appeal itself.