Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9136)
Procedural Background
On January 3, 1955, Standard Vacuum Oil Company filed a motion for immediate execution of the judgment against the petitioners. Despite the petitioners opposing the motion and filing a notice of appeal along with an appeal bond on January 11, the court approved the record on appeal on January 15 due to the lack of appearance by the plaintiff at that hearing and the absence of objections. However, on January 28, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for immediate execution, notably without requiring a bond.
Request for Reconsideration
Subsequently, on February 10, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the approval of the record on appeal stripped the court of its jurisdiction to issue the order for immediate execution. Despite this, the plaintiff countered with a motion to set aside the approval of the record, claiming it was issued in error because they had requested a postponement of the hearing before the decision on immediate execution was made.
Court's Orders and Rulings
On March 2, 1955, the trial court allowed the order for immediate execution to stand while simultaneously setting aside the approval of the record on appeal. The petitioners ultimately filed a petition for certiorari with the higher court, seeking to annul the order permitting immediate execution.
Legal Basis for Jurisdiction
The court concluded that once a notice of appeal and the record on appeal are approved, the trial court's jurisdiction over the case is relinquished. As stated in Section 9 of Rule 41, the trial court retains authority only for certain orders that do not involve matters under appeal. The court emphasized that an order for immediate execution affects the rights of the parties involved, which means that such an order falls outside the exception noted in Section 9.
Premature Approval of the Record
The court also addressed the plaintiff-respondent's objections regarding the approval of the record on appeal prior to the resolution of their motion for postponement. The court asserted that a party cannot assume a right to not appear at a hearing solely based on a request for postponement. Additionally, any err
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-9136)
Background of the Case
- The case involves a legal dispute between the petitioners, LVM Transportation Company and Lorenzo Catalan, and the respondents, Hon. Enrique A. Fernandez (Judge) and Standard Vacuum Oil Company.
- It arose from a money judgment rendered in favor of Standard Vacuum Oil Company in Civil Case No. 1149, filed in the Court of First Instance of Davao against the petitioners.
- Standard Vacuum Oil Company sought immediate execution of the judgment on January 3, 1955.
Procedural History
- The petitioners opposed the motion for immediate execution and filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal on January 11, 1955.
- A hearing was scheduled for January 15, 1955; however, no representative from the plaintiff appeared, and no objections to the record on appeal were filed.
- The court approved the record on appeal on the same day it was submitted (January 15, 1955).
- On January 28, 1955, the court granted the motion for immediate execution without requiring a bond from the plaintiff.