Villamor v. National Power Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) instituted an action for eminent domain against petitioner Carlos Villamor for the expropriation of a portion of his land to install transmission lines. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially issued a writ of possession allowing NAPOCOR to take immediate possession upon deposit of the assessed value. Subsequently, NAPOCOR amended its complaint to expropriate a larger area. The RTC again issued a writ of possession. A board of commissioners was constituted to determine compensation. The RTC rendered a decision expropriating the land in favor of NAPOCOR and ordering payment of the fair market value of the land and improvements. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration regarding a portion of the property not compensated, which the RTC granted. NAPOCOR also filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking compensation based on tax declarations and R.A. No. 6395, as amended by P.D. No. 938, which the RTC denied. Procedural History: NAPOCOR filed a Notice of Appeal. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, which the RTC granted, finding good reasons and stating that it still had jurisdiction as the records had not yet been transmitted. NAPOCOR moved for reconsideration, arguing the RTC had lost jurisdiction. The RTC denied this motion and issued a writ of execution. NAPOCOR then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to annul the RTC's orders granting execution pending appeal. The CA granted NAPOCOR's petition, setting aside the RTC's orders and directing petitioner to pay NAPOCOR a certain amount plus interest. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was partially granted by the CA, amending the amount to be paid by petitioner. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's ruling that the RTC had lost jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal, that there was no urgent need for immediate execution, and that NAPOCOR's appeal was not dilatory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lost jurisdiction to entertain and grant petitioner's motion for execution pending appeal after respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) filed its notice of appeal. Whether there was an urgent need warranting the immediate execution of the trial court's decision. Whether NAPOCOR's appeal to the Court of Appeals was dilatory.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals setting aside the orders of the Regional Trial Court granting execution pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal: The Court held that the RTC did not lose jurisdiction to grant the motion for execution pending appeal. Citing Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the Court explained that while the filing of a notice of appeal by one party perfects the appeal as to that party, it does not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the case. The trial court retains residual jurisdiction to resolve pending incidents, such as a motion for execution pending appeal, as long as the original records have not yet been transmitted to the appellate court and the period for other parties to appeal has not yet lapsed. In this case, the records show that the motion for execution pending appeal was filed while the trial court still had jurisdiction, and the records were transmitted to the CA only after the motion was filed and granted. The Court also noted that the petitioner was not furnished a copy of the RTC's Resolution denying NAPOCOR's motion for reconsideration, thus the reglementary period for petitioner's appeal had not commenced. On the issue of urgent need for immediate execution: The Court ruled that the RTC erred in finding a "good reason" to justify execution pending appeal. The Court reiterated that execution pending appeal is an exception to the general rule and requires "compelling circumstances justifying immediate execution lest judgment becomes illusory, or the prevailing party after the lapse of time be unable to enjoy it, considering the tactics of the adverse party who may have apparently no cause but to delay." The reason cited by the RTC, that NAPOCOR failed to object to the Commissioners' Report, was deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized that such execution should only be granted when superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the potential injury to the losing party should the judgment be reversed. The Court found no showing that NAPOCOR would fail to answer its obligation if the decision was affirmed, and petitioner would be entitled to legal interest for damages. On the issue of whether NAPOCOR's appeal was dilatory: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the authority to determine whether an appeal is dilatory lies with the appellate court. The trial court's premature judgment on the merits of the appeal, by deeming it dilatory, was considered an encroachment on the appellate court's prerogative. The Court stressed that unless an appeal is patently or unquestionably intended to delay, it should not be made the basis for execution pending appeal, as this would prejudice the right to appeal.
Main Doctrine
A trial court retains jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal even after a notice of appeal has been filed by one party, provided that the records have not yet been transmitted to the appellate court and the period for other parties to appeal has not yet lapsed. The mere filing of a notice of appeal by one party does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to resolve pending incidents, including motions for execution pending appeal, as long as it retains residual jurisdiction.