Cabilao v. Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Crisanto and Isabel Tubel filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages against Mariano Cabilao, Leonor Cabilao, and Bernardino Gramatica, alleging unlawful entry into their 24-hectare coconut land on May 9, 1957, more than a year before the filing of the action. They claimed to be owners and possessors since 1935 and sought injunction, monthly rentals, actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it was a forcible entry case falling under the Justice of the Peace Court. The Court of First Instance (CFI) denied this, asserting jurisdiction due to the alleged unlawful deprivation starting more than a year prior. The defendants filed an answer claiming ownership and possession since before the war. The CFI rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering defendants to vacate, restore possession, pay P30.00 monthly from May 9, 1957, P300.00 attorney's fees, and costs. Defendants filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal, which the CFI approved. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the approval, citing their counsel's recent arrival and lack of time to review the documents. The CFI granted this, giving plaintiffs ten days to examine the record. Plaintiffs then moved for immediate execution pending appeal and opposed the record on appeal, alleging it should include proceedings from a dismissed Civil Case No. 455. The CFI ordered defendants to amend the record on appeal and subsequently issued an order for immediate execution. A writ of execution was issued, and defendants were ejected from the property. The Petition: The defendants filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, assailing the order granting execution pending appeal. They contended that upon perfection of their appeal, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case, except for specific protective orders not involving the litigated matter.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to order the amendment of the record on appeal after the perfection of the appeal. Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal after the perfection of the appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court declared the order of execution dated April 12, 1961, and the writ of execution dated May 9, 1961, null and void. It ordered the respondent Judge to approve and transmit to the appellate court the amended record on appeal which the petitioners may file within ten (10) days from the finality of the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reconsideration of the record on appeal: The Court reiterated the principle that upon perfection of an appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal. However, it adopted a more liberal view, citing Cabungcal vs. Fernandez, which held that prior to the transmittal of the record on appeal, the trial court can set aside its order approving the record on appeal to further inquire into its completeness or the presence of errors. Such an order does not vacate the judgment nor affect the issues on appeal, thus remaining within the trial court's limited jurisdiction. On the issue of execution pending appeal: The Court held that an order of execution pending appeal, granted after the perfection of the appeal, is beyond the trial court's jurisdiction. The execution of a judgment is a proceeding that directly affects the rights of the parties, which are the subject matter of the appeal itself. Its purpose is not to protect or preserve the subject matter of the litigation, but rather to enforce the judgment being appealed. Therefore, such an order is considered a nullity because it infringes upon the appellate court's exclusive jurisdiction over the case once the appeal is perfected and the record is transmitted or is in the process of transmittal.
Main Doctrine
While a trial court may reconsider its order approving a record on appeal for the purpose of ordering its completion or correction prior to the transmittal of the record to the appellate court, it loses jurisdiction to order the execution of its judgment pending appeal once the appeal is perfected.