Jimenez v. Buissan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A sworn complaint was filed by Santiago Jimenez against Hon. Dimalanes Buissan, District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch III, for partiality, gross ignorance of the law, and knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order. The complainant alleged that the respondent judge, despite a perfected appeal in a case, acted on an ex-parte motion of a stranger, allowing intervention and issuing orders affecting the property subject of the litigation. Procedural History: The plaintiff in the original case, Pacifico Cimafranca, filed a motion to set aside the two orders issued by the respondent judge. The respondent judge denied this motion, leading to the filing of the present complaint. The Petition: The complaint seeks to address the alleged erroneous actions of the respondent judge in issuing orders after a perfected appeal and allowing a non-party to intervene.
Issue(s)
Whether a court may still issue orders related to an appealed case after an appeal has been perfected. Whether a person who is not a party to the litigation may be allowed to intervene and seek affirmative relief.
Ruling
The Court admonished the respondent judge, Hon. Dimalanes Buissan, to be more careful and circumspect in his actuations as a judge.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a court may still issue orders related to an appealed case after an appeal has been perfected: Upon the perfection of an appeal, the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the case. This loss of jurisdiction is comprehensive, except for specific instances outlined in Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. These exceptions include issuing orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties that do not involve matters litigated in the appeal, approving compromises prior to the transmittal of the record, and permitting pauper's appeals. In this case, the orders issued by the respondent judge, allowing a stranger to be impleaded as a party and to collect rentals from the property under litigation, were not for the protection or preservation of the rights of the parties. Therefore, the respondent judge erred in issuing these orders as he was already divested of jurisdiction over the matters litigated by the appeal. On the issue of whether a person who is not a party to the litigation may be allowed to intervene and seek affirmative relief: A person not a party to the litigation cannot generally intervene and seek affirmative relief, especially after an appeal has been perfected. The respondent judge's explanation that he allowed Oreste Torregiani to litigate as a party because he was the husband of the defendant lacks merit. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that a court cannot, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, bring in a new party for the first time on appeal. Allowing a stranger, who was not a party in the original inferior court case, to be impleaded through an ex-parte motion after the appeal was perfected constitutes a grave error. This is particularly true when the intervention seeks affirmative relief, such as the collection of rentals, which goes beyond the scope of preserving the status quo or protecting existing rights.
Main Doctrine
Once an appeal is perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, except for orders pertaining to the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties that do not involve matters litigated in the appeal. A judge commits an error by acting on an ex-parte motion of a stranger to the case after jurisdiction has been divested.