CONCEPCION J. VIUDA DE SYQUIA, AS JUDICIAL ADMINATRIX OF THE INTERSTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED GREGORIO SYQUIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEDRO CONCEPCION, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANI…

Syquia versus Concepcion

The Case

This is an original petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Concepcion J. Viuda de Syquia, as judicial administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased Gregorio Syquia, against Judge Pedro Concepcion of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to declare null and void two orders of the respondent judge — one issued on February 21, 1934, setting aside an order of execution against the surety Rafael Palma, and one issued on March 10, 1934, declaring the bill of exceptions improperly approved and reapproving it. The case matters because it fixes the exact moment when a trial court loses jurisdiction over a case on appeal: the moment the appeal is perfected by the approval of the bill of exceptions and its transmission to the appellate court. From that moment, the trial court may no longer touch the judgment or its execution.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner against Perfecto and Felipe Jacinto as principals and Rafael Palma as surety. Palma excepted to the judgment and moved for a new trial; the motion was denied, and he filed his bill of exceptions for approval. The trial court set the hearing on the approval of the bill of exceptions and on the petitioner's motion for execution. On December 16, 1933, the respondent judge ordered the issuance of a writ of execution against Palma unless he filed a bond of 14,000 pesos within ten days. Palma moved for reconsideration on January 4, 1934. While that motion was pending, the respondent judge approved the bill of exceptions on January 10, 1934. The bill was certified by the deputy clerk, transmitted to the Supreme Court, docketed there, and the parties were notified of the receipt and of the docketing and printing fees. It was then, on February 21, 1934, that the respondent judge set aside his order of execution. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, and on March 10, 1934, the respondent judge denied the motion and reapproved the bill of exceptions. The petitioner then came directly to the Supreme Court by an original petition for certiorari.

Facts

On September 25, 1930, judgment was rendered in a civil case in the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering Perfecto and Felipe Jacinto, as principals, and Rafael Palma, as surety, to pay the petitioner the sum of 13,596.24 pesos, with interest at nine per cent per annum from April 18, 1925, until fully paid, plus costs.

Palma excepted to the judgment and moved for a new trial. When the motion was denied, he filed his bill of exceptions. The court set the hearing on its approval, together with the petitioner's motion for execution, for December 16, 1933. On that date, the respondent judge ordered execution against Palma unless he filed a bond of 14,000 pesos within ten days. Palma moved for reconsideration on January 4, 1934. On January 10, 1934, while that motion was still pending, the respondent judge approved the bill of exceptions. The bill was certified by the deputy clerk, transmitted to the Supreme Court, docketed, and the parties were notified of the docketing and printing fees.

On February 21, 1934, while the bill of exceptions and its exhibits were already before the Supreme Court, the respondent judge reconsidered and set aside his order of execution, declaring that there was no legal justification for issuing a writ of execution against Palma. The petitioner moved to set aside that order for having been issued beyond jurisdiction. On March 10, 1934, the respondent judge denied the motion, declared the bill of exceptions improperly approved on January 10 because Palma's motion for reconsideration was then still pending, and reapproved the bill.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in setting aside, on February 21, 1934, his order of December 16, 1933 requiring Rafael Palma to file a bond of 14,000 pesos for the suspension of execution, after the bill of exceptions had been approved, certified, transmitted to the Supreme Court, and docketed there.
• Whether or not the respondent judge could validly reconsider an order of execution after the appeal had been perfected, although the motion for reconsideration had been filed before the appeal was perfected.

Applicable Provisions

Section 143 of Act Number 190, as amended by section 2 of Act Number 1123, prescribes the procedure for perfecting an appeal in ordinary actions:

Section 143 of Act Number 190, as amended by section 2 of Act Number 1123, prescribes the procedure to be followed in perfecting an appeal in ordinary actions, the last judicial proceeding being the allowance by the judge of the bill of exceptions and its transmission of the Supreme Court which will take cognizance of the case upon said bill of exceptions duly certified by the clerk of the Court of First Instance a quo.

This provision fixes the last judicial step that perfects the appeal — the allowance of the bill of exceptions and its transmission to the Supreme Court — and it is at that point that jurisdiction shifts to the appellate court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction. The continuation or loss of a trial court's jurisdiction in a civil action depends upon the perfecting of the bill of exceptions in accordance with the statutory provisions. As soon as the appeal is perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal, and that jurisdiction is acquired by the appellate court. The trial court cannot enter any further decree or order affecting the rights of the parties, and cannot execute any act affecting the appellate court's jurisdiction, except such as may be necessary for the protection and preservation of the subject matter of the appeal. Here, the bill of exceptions had already been approved, transmitted, and docketed, and the parties notified, when the respondent judge set aside his order of execution. The Court quoted its earlier doctrine in Rustia versus Judge of First Instance of Batangas:

Upon the approval of the bill of exceptions, the trial court loses its jurisdiction over all contentious matters connected with the issues in the case, but the parties may by agreement, and with the consent of the trial court, withdraw the bill of exceptions before its transmission to the appellate court and resubmit the case to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

The Court explained that the execution of a judgment is a proceeding affecting the rights of the parties which are the subject of the appeal, and its purpose is not to protect and preserve the subject matter of the litigation. The perfecting of the appeal therefore deprived the trial court of the power to modify or revoke any order of execution.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court has no jurisdiction to reconsider an order of execution once the appeal is perfected by the approval of the bill of exceptions and its transmission to the appellate court, even though the motion for reconsideration was filed before the appeal was perfected. The pendency of the motion did not preserve the trial court's jurisdiction over a matter already removed to the appellate court.

Doctrine

As soon as an appeal is perfected by the approval of the bill of exceptions and its transmission to the appellate court, the trial court loses jurisdiction over all contentious matters connected with the issues in the case, and the appellate court acquires it. From that moment, the trial court cannot enter any further decree or order affecting the rights of the parties, and cannot reconsider or set aside an order of execution of its judgment, although the motion for reconsideration was filed before the appeal was perfected. The only exception is where the parties, by agreement and with the consent of the trial court, withdraw the bill of exceptions before its transmission and resubmit the case to the trial court. Execution is a proceeding affecting the rights of the parties that are the subject of the appeal, not an act for the protection and preservation of the subject matter of the litigation.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the orders of the respondent judge dated February 21 and March 10, 1934 were declared null and void and of no effect, with costs against the respondent Rafael Palma.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the approval of the bill of exceptions and its transmission to the appellate court perfect the appeal and strip the trial court of jurisdiction, even over a pending motion for reconsideration of an order of execution. Examiners use this case to test the cut-off point of a trial court's jurisdiction on appeal and the rule that execution orders may no longer be disturbed once the appeal is perfected.