Facts:

The case involves petitioners Abe Industries, Inc., Teofilo See, Tirso Ampe, Se King Fu, Antonio See, Susan Sy, Sy Chin Kiong, Aureliano See, and Claudio See against respondents Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Ramon Am. Torres in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, and Erlinda Leonardo as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Victoriano See Leonardo. The events leading to the case began on September 2, 1983, when Erlinda Leonardo filed a complaint for recovery of property against the petitioners in the RTC of Cebu, which was docketed as Civil Case No. CBB-1167. After a trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a judgment in favor of Erlinda on October 29, 1985. The plaintiff received a copy of the decision on November 4, 1985, while the defendants received theirs on November 7, 1985. Subsequently, on November 14, 1985, the defendants filed a notice of appeal, and on November 25, 1985, the trial court granted due cour...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Erlinda Leonardo, in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Victoriano See Leonardo, filed a complaint for recovery of property before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu (Civil Case No. CBB-1167) on September 2, 1983.
• After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered judgment on October 29, 1985, in favor of the plaintiff.
• Copies of the decision were served on the parties: the private respondent received her copy on November 4, 1985, while the petitioners received theirs on November 7, 1985.

Appeal and Motion for Partial Execution

• On November 14, 1985, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal.
• On November 25, 1985, the RTC gave due course to the petitioners’ appeal and ordered the elevation of the records to the appellate court.
• The private respondent filed a motion for partial execution pending appeal on November 19, 1985.
• The petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that the appeal had been perfected and that the trial court had consequently lost jurisdiction over the case.

Special Order and Court Proceedings

• On December 19, 1985, the RTC issued a special order granting the partial execution of the decision pending appeal, subject to the plaintiff’s bond to cover any damages the petitioners might suffer due to the execution.
• The special order and the ensuing proceedings were brought before the Court of Appeals, which sustained the RTC’s order on partial execution pending appeal.

Rules and Procedural Clarification

• The Court of Appeals based its rationale on Rule 23 of the Interim or Transitional Rules and Guidelines relative to the implementation of Batas Blg. 129, noting that since the petitioners received the decision on November 7, 1985, their appeal was perfected on November 22, 1985.
• It was maintained that at the time the private respondent filed her motion for partial execution on November 19, 1985, the RTC still possessed jurisdiction.

Supreme Court’s Clarification and Decision

• The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s decision but clarified its reasoning regarding Section 23 of the Rules and Guidelines.
• The Court held that if one party has perfected its appeal, the phrase “upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party” applies only to the other party whose period to appeal has not yet expired.
• In this case, although the petitioners perfected their appeal on November 15, 1985 (with the period ending on November 22, 1985), the private respondent’s filing of her motion on November 19, 1985 was timely.
• Accordingly, the petition for lack of merit was denied.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Issue

• Whether respondent Judge Ramon Am. Torres still had jurisdiction to issue a special order granting the motion for partial execution pending appeal after the trial court had already given due course to the petitioners’ appeal and ordered the elevation of records to the appellate court.
• Whether the timing of filing the motion for partial execution by the private respondent was proper under the applicable rules, particularly given the different dates of receipt of the decision by the parties.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)