Associated Bank v. Gonong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Associated Bank filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money against respondents ROLE, Inc. and Romeo R. Echauz before the Court of First Instance of Manila. Procedural History: The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Associated Bank. Subsequently, ROLE, Inc. and Romeo R. Echauz filed their respective notices of appeal. While these appeals were pending, Associated Bank filed a motion for execution pending appeal. The respondent court denied this motion, citing lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the notices of appeal had already been given due course, thereby divesting the trial court of its jurisdiction. The Petition: Associated Bank filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the order denying its motion for execution pending appeal and to compel the respondent court to resolve the motion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court erred in denying the motion for execution pending appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; specifically, whether the trial court is automatically divested of jurisdiction upon the seasonable filing and approval of notices of appeal. Whether, assuming the perfection of an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction, the filing of an appeal by a losing party automatically divests the prevailing party of the right to move for execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The order of the respondent court, dated December 16, 1986, denying the petitioner's motion for execution pending appeal is SET ASIDE. The court a quo is ordered to retain the records of the case and to resolve the petitioner's motion for execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and perfection of appeal: The Court held that the respondent court erred in denying the motion for execution pending appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The premise that the trial court is automatically divested of jurisdiction upon the seasonable filing and approval of notices of appeal is mistaken. Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 removed the record on appeal as a requirement, and Section 23 of the Interim Rules of Court provides that the perfection of an appeal occurs upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party. As long as any party may still file an appeal, the court does not lose jurisdiction over the case. The filing of an appeal by a losing party does not automatically divest the party favored by the decision of the right to move for execution pending appeal. The court only loses jurisdiction after all parties' respective periods to appeal have lapsed. The resolution of a motion for execution pending appeal may occur even after the expiration of the reglementary period for appeal, as demonstrated in Universal Far East Corporation v. Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated the principle established in People v. Ursua and Simsim v. Belmonte that a party's appeal should not deprive another party of their right to file a motion for reconsideration or to move for execution pending appeal.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a notice of appeal, even if given due course, does not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction to act upon a motion for execution pending appeal, as long as the period for all parties to appeal has not yet lapsed.