Facts:

The case at hand involves Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc., along with Manuel Cuenco, Lourdes Cuenco, Jose P. Velez, Federico A. Reyes, and Jesus P. Velez, as petitioners against Hon. Francisco Geronimo, the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XII, and Miguel Cuenco as respondents. The petitioners filed a motion on June 4, 1969, seeking a resolution to assert that the respondent court had jurisdiction to act upon their motion concerning alleged abusive and illicit withdrawals made by the receiver appointed in a quo warranto proceeding. The motion arose during the ongoing appeal by Miguel Cuenco, who was contesting a prior ruling made on April 3, 1968, where the quo warranto proceedings had been dismissed upon the Republic of the Philippines’ motion.

Petitioners sought various orders aimed at stopping the receiver from making questionable withdrawals until an accounting of previous transactions was conducted. The requests included stopping withdra

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioners include Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc., Manuel Cuenco, Lourdes Cuenco, Jose P. Velez, Federico A. Reyes, and Jesus P. Velez.
• The case involves a motion filed on April 2, 1969, during the pendency of an appeal by respondent Miguel Cuenco from an earlier order dated April 3, 1968, which dismissed quo warranto proceedings initiated on motion of the Republic of the Philippines.

Petitioners’ Motion and Reliefs Sought

• The motion was directed against the receiver’s alleged abusive and illicit withdrawals.
• Specific orders prayed for in the motion included:
• An order immediately stopping the receiver from withdrawing money for fees or salaries until a complete accounting of his previous receipts was conducted.
• An order fixing the receiver's fee, taking into account that Mr. Ismael Alvarez was effectively performing the work.
• An order imputing against or deducting from the receiver’s fee the salaries of the staff members he had involved in the management.
• An order disallowing the receiver’s transportation expenses, both by plane and taxi, for traveling back to his hometown.
• An order disallowing expenses and per diems for the receiver’s purported, but fictitious, field inspection trips.
• An order stopping the receiver from offering the services of the corporate counsel of the company to his friends.

Judicial Proceedings Prior to the Motion for Reconsideration

• On May 9, 1969, the respondent judge (Hon. Francisco Geronimo) issued an order declaring that he no longer had jurisdiction to act on the petitioners’ motion because all records had been elevated to the Supreme Court in connection with Miguel Cuenco’s appeal.
• Petitioners subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration on May 17, 1969.
• The motion for reconsideration was denied on May 24, 1969.

Legal Provisions and Precedents Involved

• The case highlights the relevance of Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
• This provision allows a trial court, even during the pendency of an appeal, to "issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal."
• Jurisprudence such as Velasco vs. Gochuico, Government vs. de Asis, Dizon vs. Moir, and Canafe vs. Caluag was cited to explain that:
• The trial court retains jurisdiction to appoint and supervise a receiver.
• The court may make orders for protection that do not interfere with the issues under appeal.

The Core Question Presented

• Whether the trial court loses jurisdiction to act on the petitioners’ motion for protective orders once all records of the case are elevated to the Supreme Court in connection with an appeal.
• Whether the reliefs prayed for, being directed at the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties and the properties under receivership, may still be granted.

Issue:

Jurisdiction of the Trial Court

• Does the elevation of case records to the Supreme Court in connection with an appeal nullify the trial court's jurisdiction to issue orders protecting the parties' rights?
• Can the trial court, under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, still exercise authority to supervise and control the actions of the receiver?

Nature of the Orders Sought

• Are the reliefs prayed for in petitioners’ motion solely for the protection and preservation of rights and properties, without affecting the matters litigated in the appeal?
• Do these reliefs qualify as non-prejudicial orders that fall within the inherent jurisdiction of the trial court during the pendency of an appellate review?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)