Bisaya Land Transportation v. Geronimo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed a motion praying for specific orders concerning the receiver's alleged abusive and illicit withdrawals, including stopping withdrawals for fees pending accounting, fixing the receiver's fee considering actual work performed by another, imputing staff salaries against the receiver's fee, disallowing fictitious expense claims, and preventing the receiver from offering corporate counsel's services to friends. Procedural History: The respondent judge issued an order dated May 9, 1969, ruling that he no longer had jurisdiction to act on the motion because the records of the case had already been elevated to the Supreme Court due to respondent Miguel Cuenco's appeal from the order dismissing the quo warranto proceedings. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a motion praying for a resolution declaring the respondent court with jurisdiction to act on their motion regarding the receiver's alleged abusive and illicit withdrawals and ordering the said court to proceed and resolve the motion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court retained jurisdiction to act on petitioners' motion concerning the receiver's alleged abusive and illicit withdrawals despite the perfection of an appeal. Whether the reliefs prayed for in petitioners' motion were for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties and the properties under receivership, and did not involve matters litigated in the appeal.
Ruling
The Court ruled that the respondent court presided by Judge Francisco Geronimo may proceed to act on the premises in accordance with the resolution. The Court held that the trial court retains jurisdiction to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, even after the perfection of an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court held that Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court allows the trial court to "issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal" even after the perfection of an appeal. This principle has been consistently construed to mean that the trial court retains jurisdiction to appoint a receiver and to make any order for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties that does not affect the issue involved in the appeal. The jurisdiction retained by the trial court to appoint a receiver necessarily includes the authority to control and supervise the latter's actuations as an officer of the Court. Therefore, the respondent court did not lose jurisdiction to act on the motion concerning the receiver's alleged abusive and illicit withdrawals. On whether the reliefs prayed for involved matters litigated in the appeal: The Court found that the reliefs sought in the motion filed by petitioners were solely for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties and of the properties under receivership. These reliefs were not intended to render nugatory any decision that might be rendered in the appeal from the order of dismissal nor in the present action for certiorari. Consequently, these matters did not involve any issue litigated by the appeal, thus falling within the purview of the trial court's retained jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
Notwithstanding the perfection of an appeal, the trial court retains jurisdiction to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, including the control and supervision of a receiver.