May 28, 1996
DAR OPINION NO. 37-96
PARSSO Linda G. Hermogino
DAR Provincial Office
Mabini Extension, Cabanatuan City
Dear Mrs. Hermogino:
This has reference to your request for clarification as to whether DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6 Series of 1978 is still applicable, despite the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case entitled Lilia Y. Gonzales vs. Land Bank of the Philippines and Ernesto Sigre (CA-GR SP No. 28906), the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the petition is given due course, and Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 1978 of the Department of Agrarian Reform is declared null and void and respondents are hereby enjoined from enforcing it against petitioner herein. . . ."
Your instant request is prompted by the letter to you of Mr. Jose C. Zoleta, alleging that you issued a questionable certificate of full payment to FB's, thereby giving them unwarranted advantage thru manifest partiality, knowing that DAR M.C. No. 6 Series of 1978 is unconstitutional and null and void, as declared by the Court of Appeals in the aforecited case.
Please be informed that in the case entitled "Curso vs. Court of Appeals" (128 SCRA 567), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of MAR Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 1978 in providing guidelines on the payment of lease rentals/amortizations in implementation of PD 816. Moreover, the Court of Appeals decision in Gonzales vs. LBP and Sigre has not yet reached its finality, in view of the appeal filed by the respondents in said case with the Supreme Court. Section 9 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that once an appeal has been perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case. In the case of Ricardo Lirio vs. the Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 90462, 29 May 1992), the Supreme Court held: "Upon perfection of the appeal, jurisdiction transfers to the appellate court and the lower court, in this case the Court of Appeals, cannot proceed in any manner so as to affect the jurisdiction acquired by the appellate Court, or to defeat the right of the appellant to prosecute his appeal." It follows that upon the perfection of the appeal by the respondents, the Court of Appeals ceased to have jurisdiction over the case, hence the decision thereon cannot be enforced pending appeal.
Please be guided accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LORENZO R. REYES
OIC-Undersecretary
LAFMA
Copy furnished:
Mr. Jose C. Zoleta
No. 119 Don Manuel St.
Sta. Mesa Heights
Quezon City 1114