Facts:

The case at bar concerns the petitioner, Associated Bank, who filed a complaint for the recovery of a sum of money against the respondents, Role, Inc. and Romeo R. Echauz, in the then Court of First Instance of Manila (now Regional Trial Court) before Branch 37. On November 3, 1986, the trial court rendered a decision favoring the petitioner. Subsequently, Role, Inc. filed a notice of appeal on November 6, while Echauz followed suit by filing his notice on November 24, 1986. On November 19, 1986, prior to the filing of the notices of appeal, the petitioner had filed a motion for execution pending appeal. On December 16, 1986, the trial court denied the motion for execution on the basis that the notices of appeal had been duly filed and approved, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction to entertain such a motion. As a result, the case reached the higher court through a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus filed by the petitioner on February 17, 1987. The petitioner

...

Facts:

Origin and Procedural History

• The case originated from a complaint for the recovery of a sum of money filed by Associated Bank against Role, Inc. and Romeo R. Echauz before the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch 37.
• On November 3, 1986, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner Associated Bank.

Appeals and Motion for Execution

• Respondents Role, Inc. and Romeo R. Echauz filed their respective notices of appeal on November 6 and November 24, 1986.
• Prior to the filing of the respondents’ appeals, petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal on November 19, 1986.
• On December 16, 1986, the respondent court denied the petitioner’s motion on the ground that the trial court had already lost jurisdiction following the approval and perfection of the respondents' notices of appeal.

Petition and Subsequent Pleadings

• Dissatisfied with the respondent court’s decision, Associated Bank filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus on February 17, 1987.
• Petition sought:
• The annulment and setting aside of the order denying the motion for execution pending appeal.
• An injunction against the respondents (specifically, the respondent court) to refrain from lifting the records to the Court of Appeals until resolution of the petition.
• A mandamus directing the respondent court to resume jurisdiction over and duly decide the motion for execution pending appeal.
• Private respondents Role, Inc. and Romeo R. Echauz submitted their comments in late March 1987, and the petitioner filed its reply on June 16, 1987.

Jurisdictional Controversy

• The central factual controversy revolved around the question of whether the trial court’s jurisdiction terminated upon the respondents’ timely filing and approval of their respective appeals.
• The respondent court’s rationale was that the perfection of the appeal via the approved notices automatically divested the trial court of jurisdiction over subsequent remedial motions, including the motion for execution pending appeal.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Perfection of Appeal

• Does the approval and timely filing of the respondents’ notices of appeal automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain a motion for execution pending appeal?
• Is it proper to deny a motion for execution pending appeal on the ground that the appeal was perfected by one or more parties before the expiration of the full appeal period?

Applicability of Amendatory Provisions

• How do Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 23 of the Interim Rules of Court affect the trial court’s jurisdiction over motions filed pending appeal?
• Should the immediate perfection of an appeal be equated with a final loss of jurisdiction even though the appeal period may still be open for other parties?

Equitable Considerations

• Does allowing one party to perfect its appeal immediately, thereby potentially forfeiting the rights of the opposing party to secure relief through a motion for execution pending appeal, contravene equitable principles inherent in the Rules of Court?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)