Echaus v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a collection action for P141,000.00 filed by Spouses Emilio and Vivian Gonzales against Luisa Echaus. The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Echaus to pay P97,600.00 with interest and costs, and directing the plaintiffs to return a watch valued at P8,000.00 upon full payment of the obligation. 2. Procedural History: Echaus filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond, but the trial court denied her appeal, deeming the judgment to be based strictly on admissions made during pre-trial. Echaus moved for reconsideration and filed a record on appeal, but the trial court subsequently ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. SP-10149-R, granted Echaus's petition for mandamus, ordering the trial judge to give due course to her appeal. The Spouses Gonzales' attempt to have this Court reverse the Court of Appeals' decision was denied. Echaus then filed a motion to transmit her record on appeal, while the Gonzaleses filed a motion for execution pending appeal. The trial judge verbally approved the record on appeal but later issued an order holding approval in abeyance pending resolution of the motion for execution. Echaus moved for reconsideration of this order and also filed a motion in the Court of Appeals seeking compliance with its previous decision and an order to show cause why the judge should not be held in contempt. The Court of Appeals denied Echaus's motion, stating there was no willful refusal to comply and that the trial court retained jurisdiction to resolve the pending motion for execution. 3. The Petition: Luisa Echaus filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court, challenging the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 18, 1981, and June 22, 1981. Echaus argued that her appeal was perfected when the trial judge verbally approved the record on appeal on December 15, 1980, rendering any subsequent action by the trial judge, particularly on the motion for execution pending appeal, null and void. She relied on the ruling in Cabilao et al. v. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that a verbal order approving a record on appeal has no juridical existence until reduced to writing and promulgated, and that even a written order could be recalled or held in abeyance before transmittal of the record. The Court affirmed that the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal prior to the approval of the record on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in holding the approval of the record on appeal in abeyance pending resolution of the motion for execution pending appeal. Whether the verbal approval of the record on appeal, if any, had the effect of perfecting Echaus's appeal and divesting the trial court of jurisdiction to act on the motion for execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the validity of the trial court holding the approval of the record on appeal in abeyance: The Supreme Court reiterated the time-honored principle that no judgment or order has juridical existence until it is set down in writing, signed, and promulgated. An oral order approving a record on appeal, even if made in open court, has no legal effect until it is reduced to writing and filed with the clerk of court. Therefore, Echaus's claim that her appeal was perfected by a verbal order of approval was without merit. The Court emphasized that even a written order approving a record on appeal may be amended or revised by the court, provided it has not attained finality. The trial court indisputably has plenary power to recall and amend or revise its orders. The respondent Judge did not act without or in excess of his jurisdiction, nor did he gravely abuse his discretion, in deferring action on the record on appeal to first resolve the motion for execution pending appeal. The Court of Appeals correctly gave its imprimatur to the respondent Judge's action in light of the attendant circumstances. On the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction to act on the motion for execution pending appeal: The Court held that prior to the approval of the record on appeal, the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal. The approval of the record on appeal is the operative act that signifies the end of the trial court's power to grant such execution. In this case, since the record on appeal had not been formally approved in writing and promulgated, the trial court still had jurisdiction to resolve the pending motion for execution pending appeal. The Court also noted that even under the new rules (B.P. 129), a motion for execution pending appeal filed before the perfection of an appeal by mere notice may still be acted upon and granted after such perfection but before transmittal of the record to the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
An oral order approving a record on appeal has no juridical existence until reduced to writing and promulgated. Even a written order approving a record on appeal may be recalled or held in abeyance by the trial court prior to the transmittal of the record, especially when other incidents, such as a motion for execution pending appeal, are still pending resolution.