To Issue Orders for Protection of Parties
xxx The general rule is, petitioner states, once the appeal from a trial court judgment has been perfected said court loses jurisdiction over the case. By way of exception, it retains jurisdiction, inter alia, to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal. Under the facts of this case, upon perfection of the appeal to respondent court, the trial court lost its jurisdiction over the case only insofar as the subject matter of the appeal is concerned but not the right of petitioner to recover damages against the bond. The cause of action in the first is the occurrence of the risk insured under the marine policy whereas in the second, it is the breach of the condition in the bond, to wit: "to answer for any damages which the defendant may suffer by reason of the execution." Granting arguendo that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim for damages, private respondent is estopped by laches from raising the same.
The decision and resolution of respondent court, which petitioner asks this Court to set aside, deserve our affirmance.
There is no controversy that the appeal of petitioner has been perfected. As a necessary consequence thereof, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction over the case.8 Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court mentions three (3) instances when the trial court is allowed to exercise "residual" jurisdiction after the perfection of the appeal, namely: (1) to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal; (2) to approve compromises offered by the parties prior to the transmittal of the record on appeal to the appellate court; and (3) to permit the prosecution of pauper's appeals. Petitioner relies on the first instance as basis for its stand that the trial court has the authority to hear its application for damages. Its reliance thereon is misplaced. Although the application for damages is beyond the scope of the matter to be litigated by the appeal, there is no "protection and preservation" of its "rights" to speak of. Respondent court was emphatic in its disquisition on this subject matter:
The private respondent's application for damages being heard by the respondent court may not be considered an exception to Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The provision speaks of "protection and presentation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal." The action for damages, in fact, and in actuality, however, is an act of vindication, is punitive in nature and not an act to protect and preserve, but to punish and make one party, the petitioner, to pay damages for having availed of a writ of execution pending
appeal. . . .9
xxx xxx xxx
It is, moreover, clear that the pursuit of damages against the bond posted by the petitioner in this case, is a futile undertaking for by its express language, approved by the respondent court, the bond may only be answerable in damages where two conditions concur: one, that judgment has, in fact, been rendered on appeal, and second, that the judgment appealed from has been reversed on appeal. The very proceedings before the respondent court, now sought to be struck down, are the very reason preventing the realization of these conditions. 10
Thus, the trial court had no more jurisdiction to issue the disputed orders inasmuch as the case had already come under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of respondent court.
Nor are we inclined to sanction the application of the doctrine of estoppel by laches to the prejudice of private respondent. This doctrine is an equitable principle applied to promote but never to defeat justice.11 It should be noted private respondent opposed petitioner's application for damages by citing Section 5, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and, in effect, questioning the trial court's jurisdiction thereon. Additionally, private respondent set up the defense of lack of jurisdiction, in its motion for reconsideration dated March 5, 1990. There was no unreasonable delay by private respondent in assailing the jurisdiction of the trial court. Adherence to our exceptional ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy12 and other cases is unwarranted. Instead, we uphold the fundamental rule that a court of justice could only validly act upon a cause of action or subject matter of a case over which it has jurisdiction and said jurisdiction is one conferred by law, and cannot be acquired through, or waived by any act or omission of the parties. 13 (Fortune Life vs. CA, G.R. No. 101374, 30 July 1993) [Note: Decision promulgated prior to the 1997 Rules]
