Cordero v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case stems from a civil suit for breach of contract with damages filed by petitioner Mortimer F. Cordero against respondents Alan G. Go, Felipe Landicho, Vincent Tecson, and Tony Robinson. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 85, Quezon City, rendered a default judgment on May 31, 2000, ordering the respondents, jointly and solidarily, to pay petitioner the sum of P19,291,352.043. Procedural History: Following the RTC's default judgment, petitioner moved for execution pending appeal, which the trial court granted on July 28, 2000, citing the impending bankruptcy of one defendant and the respondents' alleged attempts to evade judgment. Respondents moved for a new trial, which was denied, and subsequently moved for reconsideration of the execution order, which was also denied. The trial court issued a writ of execution, leading to the garnishment of bank accounts and levy of real properties. Respondents filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2000, which the trial court initially denied due to late payment of docket fees but later gave due course on November 29, 2000. Concurrently, respondents obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 29, 2000, which stayed the execution. The CA, in a subsequent decision on January 29, 2001, set aside the RTC's order for execution pending appeal, finding that the trial court had lost jurisdiction upon the perfection of respondents' appeal and the transmittal of the records. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the trial court retained residual jurisdiction to issue the order for execution pending appeal because the motion was filed within the appeal period and the records had not yet been transmitted. Petitioner also contends that the CA had no jurisdiction to extend the TRO and that the respondents' petition before the CA suffered from several formal defects, including lack of proper service and verification. Furthermore, petitioner asserts that the CA erred in failing to resolve his numerous pending motions. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to issue an order for execution pending appeal despite the perfection of respondents' appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to extend the effectivity of the Temporary Restraining Order. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to respondents' petition due to alleged formal defects. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in refusing to resolve petitioner's pending motions.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 29, 2001, and its resolution dated August 31, 2001, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the loss of jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that under Rule 41, Section 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a court loses jurisdiction over a case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal for other parties. While the trial court initially had jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal under Rule 39, Section 2(a), this power is limited to the period while it has jurisdiction and is in possession of the records. The perfection of respondents' appeal on August 8, 2000, and the subsequent elevation of the records to the Court of Appeals on December 19, 2000, divested the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case. The TRO issued by the CA further restrained the enforcement of the execution order. Therefore, the trial court correctly held itself to have no jurisdiction to act further on the matter of execution pending appeal after the records were transmitted to the appellate court. On the CA's jurisdiction over the TRO: The Court found no merit in the contention that the CA had no jurisdiction to extend the TRO. The CA, in its resolution of September 29, 2000, declared the TRO in full force and effect, which was within its prerogative as the appellate court handling the certiorari petition. The subsequent actions of the trial court, such as canceling the notice of sale and denying further execution motions, were made in light of this subsisting TRO and the impending loss of jurisdiction. On the alleged formal defects of the petition: The Court found that the issues raised regarding the alleged formal defects of respondents' petition before the CA, such as lack of verification, explanation for lack of personal service, and improper service on petitioner instead of his counsel, were already raised before the CA and found to be without merit. The Supreme Court saw no reason to modify the CA's rulings on these procedural matters. On the CA's refusal to resolve motions: Similarly, the Court found no reversible error in the CA's actions regarding the motions filed by the petitioner. The CA's decision to defer action on execution pending appeal until the appeal itself was resolved, and its subsequent setting aside of the execution order, were consistent with its finding that the trial court had lost jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the CA's findings that these matters were either without merit or properly addressed within the context of the appeal.
Main Doctrine
Once an appeal has been perfected and the records transmitted to the appellate court, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, including the power to order execution pending appeal, unless it retains residual jurisdiction for specific purposes not involving the merits of the appealed case.