Valero v. Aldana
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from an action for the payment of a promissory note, wherein the petitioner, Lourdes T. Valero, was ordered by the trial court to pay private respondents, Geneva Aldana and her husband, P17,000.00 with 6% interest from the filing of the complaint, plus P3,000.00 as attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal and appeal bond. However, the record on appeal was filed within an extended period granted upon a motion filed before the expiration of the reglementary period, but acted upon after its lapse. This led the trial judge to initially declare the judgment final and order execution, resulting in the withdrawal of P18,541.92 from petitioner's savings deposit. Upon reconsideration, the trial judge set aside the execution order, deeming the extension for filing the record on appeal valid because the motion was filed within the reglementary period. The judge ordered the restoration of the withdrawn funds. Subsequently, the private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, and the judge issued an order allowing them to post a bond to secure restoration, thereby permitting payment as execution pending appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which the Court treated as an original special civil action for certiorari. The petition challenges the resolutions of the Court of Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the enforcement of the trial court's order for the restoration of funds pending the appeal on the merits. The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, asserting the petitioner's entitlement to the restoration of the funds taken under a voided writ of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the trial court's order of restoration. Whether the trial court correctly granted an extension for the filing of the record on appeal despite the motion for extension being acted upon after the reglementary period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned resolutions of the Court of Appeals and allowed the trial court to proceed consistently with its opinion. The Court held that petitioner is entitled to the restoration of the amount taken from her savings deposit under a voided writ of execution. Respondents were advised to take the option given by the trial judge to file a bond to secure restoration; otherwise, the order of restoration may be enforced by a writ of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Court of Appeals' injunction and the entitlement to restoration: The petition has merit. Indubitably, petitioner is entitled to the restoration of the amount taken from her savings deposit under a voided writ of execution. The writ of execution was issued based on the premise that the judgment had become final due to the alleged failure to file the record on appeal within the reglementary period. However, the trial court, upon reconsideration, found that the motion for extension to file the record on appeal was filed within the reglementary period, rendering the subsequent order of execution voidable. Therefore, the funds withdrawn pursuant to this voidable writ must be restored to the petitioner. The Court of Appeals' injunction against this restoration was thus erroneous. On the validity of the extension for filing the record on appeal: The trial court correctly granted the extension for filing the record on appeal. The crucial fact is that the motion for extension was filed within the reglementary period. The subsequent action of the court on this motion, even if it occurred after the reglementary period had lapsed, does not invalidate the extension granted, provided the motion itself was timely filed. This principle ensures that parties are not prejudiced by delays in court action on their timely filed motions. The subsequent order of execution, which was predicated on the failure to file the record on appeal within the original period, was therefore improperly issued.
Main Doctrine
A motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal, if filed within the reglementary period, warrants the granting of such extension, even if the order granting it is issued after the expiration of the reglementary period. Consequently, withdrawal of funds under a writ of execution based on the failure to file the record on appeal within the original period is voidable and restoration must be ordered.