The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not reach the residual jurisdiction stage in this case between the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and various respondents. Residual jurisdiction refers to a trial court's authority to issue protective orders after losing normal jurisdiction due to an appeal. However, for residual jurisdiction to apply, there must have been a trial on the merits, judgment rendered, and an appeal filed. Here, the trial court dismissed the case due to improper venue, and no appeal could be taken from that dismissal without prejudice. As no appeal was filed, the trial court did not reach the residual jurisdiction stage.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not reach the residual jurisdiction stage in this case between the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and various respondents. Residual jurisdiction refers to a trial court's authority to issue protective orders after losing normal jurisdiction due to an appeal. However, for residual jurisdiction to apply, there must have been a trial on the merits, judgment rendered, and an appeal filed. Here, the trial court dismissed the case due to improper venue, and no appeal could be taken from that dismissal without prejudice. As no appeal was filed, the trial court did not reach the residual jurisdiction stage.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not reach the residual jurisdiction stage in this case between the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and various respondents. Residual jurisdiction refers to a trial court's authority to issue protective orders after losing normal jurisdiction due to an appeal. However, for residual jurisdiction to apply, there must have been a trial on the merits, judgment rendered, and an appeal filed. Here, the trial court dismissed the case due to improper venue, and no appeal could be taken from that dismissal without prejudice. As no appeal was filed, the trial court did not reach the residual jurisdiction stage.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not reach the residual jurisdiction stage in this case between the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and various respondents. Residual jurisdiction refers to a trial court's authority to issue protective orders after losing normal jurisdiction due to an appeal. However, for residual jurisdiction to apply, there must have been a trial on the merits, judgment rendered, and an appeal filed. Here, the trial court dismissed the case due to improper venue, and no appeal could be taken from that dismissal without prejudice. As no appeal was filed, the trial court did not reach the residual jurisdiction stage.
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. EMMANUEL C. CARPIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, DAVAO CITY, COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, DABAY ABAD, HATAB ABAD, OMAR ABAS, HANAPI ABDULLAH, ROJEA AB ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ABEDIN, ALEX ABEDIN, ET AL., REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MR. MANUEL L. TE, Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: On August 21, 2001, Dabay Abad et al., represented by their attorney-in-fact, Manuel L. Te, filed a complaint for delivery of certificates of title, damages, and attorney's fees against petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Guarantee Fund for Small and Medium Enterprise (GFSME) before the RTC. In their, Complaint, Abad, et al. prayed, among others, for the issuance of a writ of seizure, pending hearing of the case, for delivery of their certificates of title they claimed to be unlawfully detained by DBP and GFSME. They alleged that their certificates of title were submitted to DBP for safekeeping pursuant to the loan agreement they entered into with DBP. RTC: issued the Writ of Seizure.
DBP filed its Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Complaint and to Quash Writ of Seizure on the ground of improper venue, among others.
RTC: granted DBP's omnibus motion and dismissed the case for improper venue.
DBP and GFSME filed their Joint Motion to Order Plaintiffs to Return Titles to Defendants DBP and GFSME.
Abad, et al. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court praying, among others, for the nullification and reversal of the order of the RTC. The Court, however, dismissed the petition. RTC: issued the Writ of Execution applied for by DBP. The Sheriffs Return of Service, however, indicated that Abad, et al. failed to deliver the certificates of title.
Due to the non-delivery of the certificates of title by Abad, et al., DBP filed its Motion/Application to Call on Plaintiff's Surety Bond, praying for the release of the bond issued by CBIC to answer for the damages it sustained as a result of the failure to return the 228 certificates of title.
RTC: denied the subject motion explaining that although there was indeed an order to return the 228 certificates of title to DBP, it was not made as a result of a trial of the case, but as a consequence of the order of dismissal based on improper venue.
Aggrieved, DBP filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the CA. CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus.
Petitioner DBP argues that it could not have anticipated that Abad, et al. (respondents) would not abide by the writ of execution; hence, prior to such failure of execution, it would be premature to claim for damages against the bond because DBP had not yet suffered any consequential damages with the implementation of the writ of seizure; and that Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court was not applicable as the damages resulting from the improper issuance of the writ of seizure occurred only after the unjustified refusal of respondents to return the titles despite the order from the RTC.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court reached the residual jurisdiction stage.
HELD: NO. The trial court did not reach the residual jurisdiction stage.
Residual jurisdiction refers to the authority of the trial court to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal; to approve compromises; to permit appeals by indigent litigants; to order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2, Rule 39; and to allow the withdrawal of the appeal, provided these are done prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, even if the appeal has already been perfected or despite the approval of the record on appeal or in case of a petition for review under Rule 42, before the CA gives due course to the petition.
The "residual jurisdiction" of the trial court is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
From the foregoing, it is clear that before the trial court can be said to have residual jurisdiction over a case, a trial on the merits must have been conducted; the court rendered judgment; and the aggrieved party appealed therefrom.
In this case, there was no trial on the merits as the case was dismissed due to improper venue and respondents could not have appealed the order of dismissal as the same was a dismissal, without prejudice. Section 1(h), Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice. Indeed, there is no residual jurisdiction to speak of where no appeal has even been filed.
