Ravelo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Pedro S. Ravelo and Carmen Tan Ravelo filed a complaint against Nationwide Distributors, Inc. seeking the annulment or reformation of a deed of absolute sale with assumption of mortgage and a contract of lease, both dated May 15, 1967. They alleged the documents were null and void due to simulation and the imposition of usurious interest rates. The trial court, on June 13, 1989, rendered a decision in favor of the defendant, declaring the sale and lease valid, ordering the plaintiffs to vacate the property, and to pay monthly rentals and attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: Following the trial court's decision, the prevailing party, Nationwide Distributors, Inc., filed a motion for execution pending appeal on July 4, 1989. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on July 7, 1989. The trial court, on February 5, 1990, granted the motion for execution pending appeal and denied the motion for reconsideration. Petitioners received this order on February 19, 1990, and filed a notice of appeal on February 21, 1990. Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court lost jurisdiction upon the perfection of their appeal. The Court of Appeals denied due course to this petition in a resolution dated March 19, 1990, which was later reiterated in a resolution dated April 20, 1990. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek a review of the Court of Appeals' resolutions through a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They contend that the Court of Appeals erred in not applying Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 23 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, and in not holding that the execution pending appeal would deprive them of property without due process. The core issue is whether an order granting execution pending appeal can be enforced by the trial court after the perfection of an appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether an order granting a motion pending appeal may be enforced by the trial court after the perfection of the appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 23 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines. Whether the execution pending appeal would deprive petitioners of their property without due process of law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari. The resolution giving due course to the petition was recalled.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of enforcement of execution pending appeal after perfection of appeal: The Court reiterated that Section 23 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines provides that the perfection of an appeal is reckoned from the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party. The trial court loses jurisdiction only after all parties' respective periods to appeal have lapsed. In this case, petitioners received the decision on June 26, 1989, and had until July 11, 1989, to appeal. However, they filed a motion for reconsideration on July 7, 1989, which tolled the period to appeal. The period to appeal started running again only after they received the February 5, 1990 Order denying their motion for reconsideration and granting execution pending appeal. They received this on February 19, 1990, and filed their notice of appeal on February 21, 1990. Therefore, the motion for execution pending appeal and its resolution were made before the appeal was perfected. The order granting execution pending appeal was issued within the prescribed period and can be executed even after the filing of the notice of appeal because the trial court retains jurisdiction to implement such pre-existing order. Negating this power would nullify Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On the alleged error in not applying Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 23 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines: The Court found that Section 23 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines clearly indicates that the perfection of an appeal is determined by the expiration of the last day to appeal, and jurisdiction is lost only after all parties' appeal periods have lapsed. The filing of a motion for reconsideration interrupts the period to appeal. In this case, the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners tolled the appeal period. The subsequent order granting execution pending appeal was issued while the trial court still had jurisdiction. The appeal was perfected only after the denial of the motion for reconsideration and the subsequent filing of the notice of appeal. Therefore, the trial court's actions were in accordance with the rules. On the issue of deprivation of property without due process: The Court noted that this second assigned error was not raised before the respondent Court of Appeals. It is a well-settled rule that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below. Therefore, this issue cannot be considered by the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
An order granting execution pending appeal, issued by the trial court while it still has jurisdiction, remains valid and enforceable even after the perfection of an appeal, as the trial court retains jurisdiction to implement such pre-existing order.