Cebu Contractors Consortium Company v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Makati Leasing and Financing Corporation (MLFC) filed a collection suit with replevin against Cebu Contractors Consortium Company (CCCC) for a principal obligation of P1,067,861.70. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of MLFC, ordering CCCC to pay the principal obligation, attorney's fees, litigation and repossession expenses, and costs. Procedural History: CCCC received the decision on August 15, 1989, and filed a motion for reconsideration on August 21, 1989, which was denied on May 4, 1990. MLFC filed a motion for execution pending appeal on May 17, 1990, citing CCCC's imminent insolvency. CCCC filed its notice of appeal on May 21, 1990. Despite the pendency of the motion for execution, the trial court granted it on September 21, 1990, conditioned upon MLFC posting a bond. MLFC posted a P2-million bond, which was approved. CCCC filed a motion to dissolve the writ, which was denied. CCCC's petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was dismissed, and its motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: CCCC filed a petition for review, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in dismissing its certiorari petition and affirming the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal. CCCC argued that the trial court lost jurisdiction upon the perfection of its appeal and that the motion for execution pending appeal could not be acted upon after appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of CCCC's appeal. Whether the trial court could validly grant a motion for execution pending appeal after the perfection of the appeal. Whether the imminent insolvency of the defendant and the posting of a sufficient bond justify execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the trial court lost jurisdiction upon the perfection of CCCC's appeal: The Court held that the mere filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Section 23 of the Interim Rules states that an appeal is perfected upon the expiration of the last day to appeal or upon approval of the record on appeal. The motion for execution pending appeal was filed before the perfection of CCCC's appeal. The Court reiterated the principle that a trial court retains jurisdiction to resolve pending incidents, such as a motion for execution pending appeal, even after an appeal has been perfected, as these resolutions form part of the records to be elevated. The jurisdiction to act on the motion continued until the matter was resolved and was not lost by the subsequent action of the defendant. On whether the trial court could validly grant a motion for execution pending appeal after the perfection of the appeal: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the motion for execution pending appeal was filed seasonably on May 17, 1990, four days before CCCC filed its notice of appeal on May 21, 1990. Therefore, the motion was pending before the court a quo prior to the perfection of the appeal. The jurisprudence supports the view that notwithstanding the appeal having been perfected, the trial court continues to have jurisdiction over pending incidents. Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to decide the pending incident for the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal. On whether the imminent insolvency of the defendant and the posting of a sufficient bond justify execution pending appeal: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the imminent insolvency of the losing party, coupled with the prevailing party's posting of a sufficient bond (in this case, P2 million), justified the grant of execution pending appeal. The Court noted that CCCC invoked and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by participating in the proceedings on the motion for execution pending appeal, filing an opposition and a motion for dissolution without assailing the trial court's jurisdiction. Therefore, CCCC is estopped from assailing the same jurisdiction it had previously invoked.
Main Doctrine
The trial court retains jurisdiction to resolve a motion for execution pending appeal that was filed before the perfection of the appeal, even if the appeal is subsequently perfected.