G.R. No. 126221, April 28, 1998
Posted By: Alaine Joyce on July 24, 2018
FACTS:
In the elections of May 8, 1995, eight candidates vied for the position of Vice mayor for the Municipality of Tuburan, Province of Basilan. Mohammad garnered 2, 065 votes; Alano garnered 2, 912 votes; and Asmala garnered 2, 542 votes. On the basis of said result, Mohammad was proclaimed, and later he assumed office as Vice Mayor.
On May 22, 1995, Asmala filed an election protest with the RTC of Basilan. During the hearing, the court found that several ballots were written just by one hand while other ballots were prepared by only two persons. On February 14, 1996, trial court rendered decision adjudging Asmala the duly elected Vice Mayor.
On February 26, 1996, after promulgation of the decision, Mohammad filed his Notice of Appeal with the same RTC. On the following day, February 27, 1996, Asmala presented a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. Thereto, Mohammad interposed his opposition, theorizing that his perfected appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to resolve the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court lost jurisdiction to resolve the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
HELD:
No, the court has not lost jurisdiction to resolve the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
Although it is beyond cavil that Mohammad sent his Notice of Appeal on time; having filed the same on the day the judgment appealed from was promulgated, the appeal was deemed perfected, with respect to him only. Such appeal did not deprive petitioner of the right to avail himself of the entire period of five days within which to appeal, if he so desired. An appeal is perfected upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party – it is not perfected on the date the notice of appeal was filed.
Thus, when Asmala filed his Motion for Execution Pending Appeal on February 27, 1996, the trial court still had jurisdiction over the case because as to him (petitioner), appeal was not yet perfected. #END
