G.R. No. 131094 - Ferdez vs. Court of Appeals

January 23, 1993 – Concepcion Olivares filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer (Civil Case No. 140953) against Jesus Fernandez in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch XV.
The MeTC dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause of action. Olivares appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 46.
May 2, 1994 – The RTC reversed the MeTC and ordered Fernandez to pay rental arrearages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.

June 28, 1994 – Fernandez received the RTC decision. Fourteen days later (July 12, 1994), he filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied (order received November 29, 1994).
December 1, 1994 – Fernandez filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, which was granted (resolution received December 12, 1994).
December 9, 1994 – Fernandez filed a Motion for New Trial in the RTC (Civil Case No. 93-67034), invoking newly discovered evidence (rent receipts).
December 29, 1994 – Fernandez moved in the CA to withdraw his petition for review; the CA noted the withdrawal on January 19, 1995.
February 6, 1995 – The RTC denied the Motion for New Trial, holding that the CA had already acquired jurisdiction. Fernandez’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 14, 1995.

January 30, 1996 – The RTC granted Olivares’s motion for execution of the May 2, 1994 decision and denied Fernandez’s reconsideration. A writ of execution issued on January 31, 1996.
February 1996 – Fernandez filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (CA-G.R. SP No. 39655) in the CA, with prayer for injunction; on February 14, 1996, the CA issued a temporary restraining order.
May 16, 1997 – The CA denied Fernandez’s petition, holding that his motion for extension of time amounted to an election to appeal, thus divesting the RTC of jurisdiction over the motion for new trial. A motion for reconsideration was denied on October 13, 1997.
January 26, 1998 to December 2, 1998 – The Supreme Court required and received comments and memoranda from both parties.

Whether the mere filing of a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review (later withdrawn) automatically divested the RTC of its jurisdiction to entertain Fernandez’s Motion for New Trial.