Execution pending appeal - G.R. No. 197124

G.R. No. 197124

"x x x.

Execution pending appeal of decisions in ejectment cases

          Rule 42 of the Rules of Court governs the appeal of a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; the appeal is made by filing a petition for review with the CA.[10]  Despite the filing of a petition with the CA, however, Rule 42 grants the RTC residual jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal, so long as (1) the CA has not yet given due course to the petition, and (2) the requirements of Section 2, Rule 39 are observed.  The relevant portion of Section 8, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court states:

Section 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof — (a) x x x

However, before the Court of Appeals gives due course to the petition, the Regional Trial Court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.

x x x x

          Under Section 6, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, the CA can give due course to a petition for review when it finds prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the appealed decision.[11] This initial determination by the CA can take place only when the proper pleadings have actually been filed before the CA, enabling it to study the facts of the case and the alleged errors of the assailed ruling.  In other words, the CA can give due course to an appeal of the RTC decision only (1) after the filing of a petition for review, and (2) upon the filing of the comment or other pleading required by the CA, or the expiration of the period for the filing thereof without such comment or pleading having been submitted.

When the RTC granted the Bulasaos’ motion for execution pending appeal on November 21, 2007, ALPA-PCM has not yet filed its petition for review with the CA; what ALPA-PCM filed on November 13, 2007 was only a motion for extension of time to file its petition.  In the absence of any petition for review actually filed with the CA, the CA could clearly not have given due course to ALPA-PCM’s appeal. The RTC, thus, retained its residual jurisdiction over the case to authorize execution of the decision.

The Court also fails to find anything irregular in the filing by the Bulasaos of a motion for execution ahead of the filing by ALPA-PCM of its motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision.  ALPA-PCM misconstrues our ruling in JP Latex Technology, Inc. v. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc.[12]  The ruling does not prevent the prevailing party from filing a motion for execution until after the adverse party has filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment.  The RTC, however, is precluded from acting on the motion for execution until it has resolved the motion for reconsideration.  In the present case, the RTC heeded this rule, as it granted the Bulasaos’ motion for execution only after it has resolved to deny ALPA-PCM’s motion for reconsideration of its decision. 

x x x."