URDANETA RURAL BANK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. FELIX SAN JUAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

The Urdaneta Rural Bank filed this
action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
to set aside a writ of execution is­sued by a branch of that court and to
recover damages allegedly suffered as a result of the issuance of the writ of
execution.  The principal ground for the
action is that the writ of execution was without the authority of the court to
issue because the bank had earlier taken an appeal, thereby depriving the court
of jurisdiction to act in the case. 
Named as defendants were the spouses Felix San
Juan and Manuela Nolasco in whose favor the judgment
was rendered, Judge Amado S. Santiago of branch V of
the court, the clerk of court in his capacity as ex-oficio
provincial sheriff, and the deputy provincial sheriff.  On motion of the spouses San Juan, however,
the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it had no power to annul
the orders and processes of a coor­dinate branch.

Hence this appeal.

It appears that in civil case U-902, branch V of the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan rendered judgment
against the Urdaneta Rural Bank, ordering the latter to
vacate a piece of land and the house built thereon, which the bank had leased
from the spouses San Juan, and to pay rental for their use and occupation.  On December
20, 1966 the court ordered execution of its judg­ment even before
the time to appeal had expired, upon the filing by the spouses of a bond of P5,000.

The bank subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the
case was docketed as C.A.-G.R. 39103,
and asked that the lower court be ordered to hold in abeyance the execution of
its judgment while the appeal was pending. 
The motion was denied.  As the
writ of execution lapsed in the meantime without being enforced, the trial
court ordered on June 27, 1967
the issuance of an alias writ. 
This is the order which the bank assails in this action.

On April 1, 1968
the defendants-appellees filed a petition to dismiss
the appeal in this case on the ground that the issue ten­dered had become
moot.  The basis of the petition is the
resolu­tion dated February 27, 1968
of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. 39103,
which resolution has become final, dismissing the appeal of the bank in civil
case U-902 for failure to file its brief.

The petition is well taken. 
With the dismissal of the ap­peal taken by the bank, the decision in
civil case U-902 has be­come final and executory and,
therefore, the power of the trial court to execute its judgment must now be
deemed beyond ques­tion.  The bank,
however, contends that aside from the validity of the writ of execution its
right to damages is likewise in issue in this case, but the issue of damages is
merely incidental, since an award
of damages may follow only after a declaration that the writ of execution is
void.

At all events, this appeal should be dismissed because the brief
for the bank, as appellant in this case, was filed out of time.  The brief, which should have been filed on or
before Feb­ruary 14, 1968,
was actually filed on March 11, 1968,
25 days after the last day for
filing it.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant appeal is dismissed.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.