JUAN ANG, ROMEO R. ANG, MINDA R. ANG, WILLIAM LOPEZ AND ERNESTO YAP, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, JOVITA O. CRUZ, MACARIA TE AND RENE TE, RESPONDENTS.

In Civil Case No. 913, filed by Jovita
O. Cruz, Macaria Cruz Te and Rene Te against Juan Ang, Romeo R. Ang, Minda R. Ang, William Lopez and
Ernesto Yap, the Court of First Instance of Davao, Tagum Branch I, rendered a decision dated October 8, 1979,
declaring the defendants the owners of the three disputed lots and ordering that they be placed in possession
thereof.

The defendants, as the winning parties, filed a motion for
execution pending appeal.  It was granted
by the lower court in its orders of November 5 and 9, 1979 on condition that
they should file a bond in the sum of P10,000.  In a separate order dated November 9, 1979 the lower court
approved plaintiffs’ record on appeal.

Not satisfied with the order of execution pending appeal,
plaintiffs Jovita O. Cruz, Macaria
Cruz Te and Rene Te filed a petition for certiorari dated December 28, 1979 wherein they
prayed that that order be annulled.

That petition was to be filed in the Court of Appeals.  The name of that Court is in the heading of
the petition.  However, it was
inadvertently filed with this Court and docketed as G. R No. 52461 on February 5, 1980 at 9 a.m.

After the error was discovered, one original of the petition and
some copies were filed in the Court of Appeals where it was docketed also on February 5,
1980 as CA-G. R. No. SP-10355 and assigned to the
Seventh Division (Escolin, Villasor
and Villaluz, JJ.)

Inasmuch as another original of the petition for certiorari
was already stitched to the Rollo of SC-G. R. No.
52461, we issued a resolution on February
8, 1980 transferring that Rollo to
the Court of Appeals where it was docketed on February 27, 1980 as CA-G. R. No. SP-10466
and assigned to the Eighth Division (Reyes, Coquia
and Zosa, JJ.).

The Rollo of SC-G.
R. No. 52461, which became CA-G. R. No. SP-10466, was sent to the Court of Appeals by means of a letter
of transmittal signed by this Court’s chief of the judicial records
office.  Thus, a single petition was
docketed twice, an anomaly which was not seasonably discovered.

After the submission of a comment and memoranda, the Seventh
Division in a decision promulgated on November 12, 1980 nullified the execution pending
appeal.

Respondents Juan Ang, et al., the
defeated parties in the certiorari case (the winning parties in the
lower court and the petitioners in the instant case), filed a motion for
reconsideration through lawyer Mario M.
Arzadon who called the Seventh Division’s attention
to the fact that a similar certiorari case, CA-G. R. No. SP-10466, was decided by the Eighth Division.  He attached to his motion a copy of Justice Coquia’s decision. 
Justice Villasor of the Seventh Division
denied the motion for reconsideration in a resolution promulgated on March
13, 1981.

That decision was appealed to this Court but because the petition
for review on certiorari was filed late, it was denied in the resolution
of June 19, 1981 in G.R.
No. 56572.  A motion dated July 26
for the reconsideration of the minute denial resolution is pending.

On the other hand, the Eighth Division issued summons and a
restraining order and required the respondents to comment on the petition in
CA-G. R. No. SP-10466.  Copies of the summons, restraining order and
the resolution to comment were served upon petitioners’ counsel, Simeon N. Millan, Jr. Had Millan been more
observant and percipient, he would have noticed that his petition had been docketed
twice.  But he did not perceive the
error.  Like the respondents, he did
nothing about it.

No comment was ever submitted by the respondents.  The Eighth Division, through Justice Coquia, in a decision promulgated on November 7, 1980
(the decision of the Seventh Division was promulgated on November 12, 1980) also nullified the
execution pending appeal.

Arzadon, the counsel of the respondents
(now petitioners Juan Ang, et al.), filed a motion
for reconsideration dated December
19, 1980 wherein he called the Division’s attention to the fact
that the petition in the case, CA-G. R. No. SP-10466,
is a duplication of the petition in CA-G.R. No. No. 10355 decided
by Justice Villasor of the Seventh Division.

Arzadon prayed for the dismissal of the
petition and asked that lawyer Millan be declared in
contempt of court.  The Eighth Division
(per Justice Coquia) in its resolution of June 10,
1981 denied the motion and did not bother to straighten out the anomaly that two
decisions were rendered by two Divisions on the same petition for certiorari.

On August 11, 1981,
lawyer Arzadon filed in this Court a petition for
review on certiorari wherein he prayed that the decision of the Eighth
Division be reversed and set aside and that the execution pending appeal be
upheld.  (G. R. No. 57481).

We hold that the Seventh and Eighth Divisions (assuming that the
petition in G. R. No. 56572 was filed on time) did not err in sustaining the
petition for certiorari and in annulling the execution pending
appeal.  The motion for reconsideration
in G. R. No. 56572 is denied.

WHEREFORE, the two petitions for review are
dismissed.  The Division of the Court of
Appeals to which the appeal in the main case is assigned should decide
that appeal as soon as possible.  The
Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals is directed to call the Division’s
attention to the urgency of resolving the appeal with the least delay.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, and
De Castro, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., is on leave.