1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls.

check for errors>

Rule 51 Judgment

You already know that the Court of Appeals operates by division. There are more than 50 justices there. Every division is composed of . The must be unanimous. !n case there is no unanimity" there should be a special division of 5 to hear the case all over a#ain and the majority rules. Althou#h from what ! #athered sa CA" this is a farce . Actually" they do not discuss it" they will just #ive it to the ponente. Tapos sabihin mo $concur.% &ihira lan# tala#a an# na#a'participate unless si#uro malakas ka sa isan# justice and then ma#' dissent para ma#karoon n# division of 5. That is not really the intention of the of the law. (et%s #o back to what we were sayin# before under )ule *. Every decision or resolution of a court shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based. !f a decision does not state its basis" it is a SIN PERJUICIO jud#ment. That is not a valid jud#ment. The re+uirement applies to all courts whether ,TC" )TC" or CA. This is emphasi-ed a#ain in .ection 5/ Sec. 5. Form of decision. E!ery dec"s"o# or f"#al resolut"o# of the court "# appealed cases shall clearly a#d d"st"#ctly state the f"#d"#$s of fact a#d the co#clus"o#s of la% o# %h"ch "t "s &ased' %h"ch (ay &e co#ta"#ed "# the dec"s"o# or f"#al resolut"o# "tself' or adopted fro( those set forth "# the dec"s"o#' order' or resolut"o# appealed fro(. )Sec. *+' ,- ,l$. 1./0 )#0 The CA must state its findin#s and conclusions or accordin# to .ection 5 it may simply adopt the findin#s and conclusions set forth in the decision or order appealed from. !f the CA is #oin# to affirm the jud#ment of the )TC" it may simply copy or adopt the findin#s and conclusions of the )TC. !t is called a 0,E,1)A234, 3EC!.!125. !f you will look at .ection 5" it states that the provision is taken from .ection 60" &7 89:. !t is taken from the ;udiciary (aw. !s this provision not an invitation to la-iness on the part of the CA justices< !f the CA will affirm the jud#ment of the )TC" the work is easier because it may simply adopt on its own the findin#s of the )TC. !f the CA would reverse the decision" the job would be more difficult" because it would write an entirely new decision to rebut or dispute the findin#s of the )TC. This is why when this provision came out in the ;udiciary (aw" there was a sort of fear that this mi#ht be the cause of la-iness. The .C" well aware of that dan#er" clarifies in one case that memorandum decisions are not allowed in all cases. The CA is only allowed to render a memorandum decision in simple cases especially when the appeal is dilatory and there is nothin# wron# in the appealed decision. &ut if the case is complicated or comple=" even if CA would affirm the decision" it cannot simply copy the work of the )TC. !t should write its own decision. The limitation or #uidelines was issued by the .C precisely to avoid the dan#er of la-iness on the part of CA justices. The .C said in the case of 1R2N34S35 vs. -ERMS6U7 189 S3R2 9.* :E7D; 0The Court finds it necessary to emphasi-e that the memorandum decision should be sparin#ly used lest it become an addictive e=cuse for judicial sloth. !t is an additional condition for its validity that this kind of decision may be resorted to only in cases where the facts are in the main accepted by both parties or easily determinable by the jud#e and there are no doctrinal complications involved that will re+uire an e=tended discussion of the laws involved. The memorandum decision may be employed in simple liti#ations only" such as ordinary collection cases" where the appeal is obviously #roundless and deserves no more than the time needed to dismiss it.5

124

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>
>/ ?hen is a case deemed submitted for jud#ment< A/ .ection 8 of )ule 58/ Sec. 1. When case deemed submitted for jud ment . su&("tted for <ud$(e#t;

Rule 51 Judgment

2 case shall &e dee(ed

2. In Ordinary appeals. 10 =here #o hear"#$ o# the (er"ts of the (a"# case "s held' upo# the f"l"#$ of the last plead"#$' &r"ef' or (e(ora#du( re>u"red &y the Rules or &y the court "tself' or the e?p"rat"o# of the per"od for "ts f"l"#$. .0 =here such a hear"#$ "s held' upo# "ts ter("#at"o# or upo# the f"l"#$ of the last plead"#$ or (e(ora#du( as (ay &e re>u"red or per("tted to &e f"led &y the court' or the e?p"rat"o# of the per"od for "ts f"l"#$. ,. In original actions and petitions for review. 10 =here #o co((e#t "s f"led' upo# the e?p"rat"o# of the per"od to co((e#t. .0 =here #o hear"#$ "s held' upo# the f"l"#$ of the last plead"#$ re>u"red or per("tted to &e f"led &y the court' or the e?p"rat"o# of the per"od for "ts f"l"#$. 90 =here a hear"#$ o# the (er"ts of the (a"# case "s held' upo# "ts ter("#at"o# or upo# the f"l"#$ of the last plead"#$ or (e(ora#du( as (ay &e re>u"red or per("tted to &e f"led &y the court' or the e?p"rat"o# of the per"od for "ts f"l"#$. )#0 Sec. .. !" #hom rendered. The <ud$(e#t shall &e re#dered &y the (e(&ers of the court %ho part"c"pated "# the del"&erat"o# o# the (er"ts of the case &efore "ts ass"$#(e#t to a (e(&er for the %r"t"#$ of the dec"s"o#. )#0 Sec. 9. $uorum and votin in the court. The part"c"pat"o# of all three Just"ces of a d"!"s"o# shall &e #ecessary at the del"&erat"o# a#d the u#a#"(ous !ote of the three Just"ces shall &e re>u"red for the pro#ou#ce(e#t of a <ud$(e#t or f"#al resolut"o#. 4f the three Just"ces do #ot reach a u#a#"(ous !ote' the clerk shall e#ter the !otes of the d"sse#t"#$ Just"ces "# the record. Thereafter' the 3ha"r(a# of the d"!"s"o# shall refer the case' to$ether %"th the ("#utes of the del"&erat"o#' to the -res"d"#$ Just"ce %ho shall des"$#ate t%o Just"ces chose# &y raffle fro( a(o#$ all the other (e(&ers of the court to s"t te(porar"ly %"th the(' for("#$ a spec"al d"!"s"o# of f"!e Just"ces. The part"c"pat"o# of all the f"!e (e(&ers of the spec"al d"!"s"o# shall &e #ecessary for the del"&erat"o# re>u"red "# sect"o# . of th"s Rule a#d the co#curre#ce of a (a<or"ty of such d"!"s"o# shall &e re>u"red for the pro#ou#ce(e#t of a <ud$(e#t or f"#al resolut"o#. ).a0 Sec. *. %is&osition of a case. The 3ourt of 2ppeals' "# the e?erc"se of "ts appellate <ur"sd"ct"o#' (ay aff"r(' re!erse' or (od"fy the <ud$(e#t or f"#al order appealed fro(' a#d (ay d"rect a #e% tr"al or further proceed"#$s to &e had. )9a0 Sec. 5. Form of decision. E!ery dec"s"o# or f"#al resolut"o# of the court "# appealed cases shall clearly a#d d"st"#ctly state the f"#d"#$s of fact a#d the co#clus"o#s of la% o# %h"ch "t "s &ased' %h"ch (ay &e co#ta"#ed "# the dec"s"o# or f"#al resolut"o# "tself' or adopted fro( those set forth "# the dec"s"o#' order' or resolut"o# appealed fro(. )Sec. *+' ,- ,l$. 1./0 )#0 Sec. @. 'arm(ess error. No error "# e"ther the ad("ss"o# or the e?clus"o# of e!"de#ce a#d #o error or defect "# a#y rul"#$ or order or "# a#yth"#$ do#e or o("tted &y the tr"al court or &y a#y of the part"es "s $rou#d for $ra#t"#$ a #e% tr"al or for sett"#$ as"de' (od"fy"#$' or other%"se d"stur&"#$ a <ud$(e#t or order' u#less refusal to take such act"o# appears to the court "#co#s"ste#t %"th su&sta#t"al <ust"ce. The court at e!ery sta$e of the proceed"#$ (ust d"sre$ard a#y error or defect %h"ch does #ot affect the su&sta#t"al r"$hts of the part"es. )5a0

125

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 51 Judgment

Sec. 8. Jud ment #here there are severa( &arties. 4# all act"o# or proceed"#$s' a# appealed <ud$(e#t (ay &e aff"r(ed as to so(e of the appella#ts' a#d re!ersed as to others' a#d the case shall thereafter &e proceeded %"th' so far as #ecessary' as "f separate act"o#s had &ee# &e$u# a#d prosecutedA a#d e?ecut"o# of the <ud$(e#t of aff"r(a#ce (ay &e had accord"#$ly' a#d costs (ay &e ad<ud$ed "# such cases' as the court shall dee( proper. )@0 (et%s #o to .ection @. >/ ?hen there are 9 or more plaintiffs or 9 or more defendants in the cases appealed" is it possible that the CA will render decision for one plaintiff but a#ainst the other plaintiffs" or in favor of one defendant and a#ainst the other< A/ YE.. !t is possible that one plaintiff will win" other plaintiffs will lose especially when the facts are not identical. This is also true in cases of 9 or more defendants when each one interposes separate defenses. The defense of one may be true" others may be false. !t is possible that one defendant will win and other defendants will lose. >/ .uppose there are 9 defendants in a case. All of them lost. 3efendant A appealed. 3efendant & did not appeal. 1n appeal" defendant A won. ?ill the appeal of A benefit & who did not appeal< A/ As a AE2E)A( )4(E/ 2o" the appeal would only benefit the appealin# defendant. The jud#ment becomes final to those who did not appeal even if it is wron#. EBCE7T!12 / ?hen the (!A&!(!TY of the 9 parties are so !2TE)T?!2E3 that it would be absurd that one of them will win and the other will lose. Thus" the appeal by the appealin# party benefits his co'party who did not appeal. This principle was laid down in some cases. Amon# them is the case of UN4BERS27 M5T5RS 35R-. vs. 35URT 51 2--E27S .+5 S3R2 *.C D1//.E :E7D/ 0!t is erroneous to rule that the decision of the trial court could be reversed as to the appealin# private respondent and continue in force a#ainst the other private respondents. The latter could not remain bound after the former had been releasedC althou#h the other private respondents had not joined in the appeal" the decision rendered by the respondent court inured to their benefit. ?hen the obli#ation of the other solidary debtors is so dependent on that of their co' solidary debtor" the release of the one who appealed" provided it be not on #rounds personal to such appealin# private respondent" operates as well as to the others who did not appeal. !t is for this reason" that a decision or jud#ment in favor of the private respondent who appealed can be invoked as res judicata by the other private respondents.5 .o" their liabilities are so intertwined. EBA,7(E / ,ayakin .kywalker and 3arth ,ort borrowed money from >ui Aon ;et. They bound themselves jointly and severally to pay the loan. There is only one promissory note" one loan and both ,ayakin and 3arth ,ort si#ned. Their common defense is payment. &ut the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff D>ui Aon ;etE and ordered ,ayakin and 3arth ,ort to pay. ,ayakin appealed but 3arth ,ort did not. 1n appeal" CA decided in favor of ,ayakin sayin#" )Wa(a nan utan si *a"a+in ba dahi( ba"ad na,- Fow about 3arth ,ort< 3arth ,ort is also released. This principle is reiterated in the case of 32F2,2 vs. 35URT 51 2--E27S .1/ S3R2 581 D1//9E :E7D/ 0A reversal of a jud#ment on appeal is bindin# on the parties to the suit but does not inure to the benefit of parties who did not join in the appeal Das a #eneral ruleE. The reco#ni-ed e=ception is when their ri#hts and liabilities and those of the parties appealin# are so inter#oven and dependent so as to be inseparable" in which case a reversal as to one operates as a reversal to all.5

126

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 51 Judgment

The rule is so similar in Criminal 7rocedure. ?hen the appeal of one accused benefits his co'accused who did not appeal especially when the defense of such appealin# accused is applicable to him. Sec. C. $uestions that ma" be decided. No error %h"ch does #ot affect the <ur"sd"ct"o# o!er the su&<ect (atter or the !al"d"ty of the <ud$(e#t appealed fro( or the proceed"#$s there"# %"ll &e co#s"dered u#less stated "# the ass"$#(e#t of errors' or closely related to or depe#de#t o# a# ass"$#ed error a#d properly ar$ued "# the &r"ef' sa!e as the court (ay pass upo# pla"# errors a#d cler"cal errors. )8a0 >/ Can the CA decide an issue which was not raised by the parties< Can the CA correct the error which was never assi#ned by the other party< A/ AE2E)A( )4(E / 1nly errors which are stated in the appellant%s brief should be considered. !f the error is not assi#ned" that cannot be corrected. This is just an e=tension of the rule that objections and defenses not pleaded are deemed waived. EBCE7T!12 / The followin# matters can be corrected or the court can take co#ni-ance even if the parties did not raise them/ 8.E 9.E .E 6.E ;urisdiction over the subject matter of the caseC 7lain errorsC Clerical Errors. Errors which are not assi#ned but closely related to or dependent on an assi#ned error.

The fourth e=ception is taken from decided cases. Accordin# to the .C" even if you will not mention a mistake committed by the trial court if such mistake is related to the mistake mentioned" it can be corrected. !n the case of 2,EJ2R5N vs. 35URT 51 2--E27S .+C S3R2 C// D1//.E :E7D/ An unassi#ned error closely related to the error properly assi#ned" or upon which the determination of the +uestion raised by the error properly assi#ned is dependent" will be considered by the appellate court notwithstandin# the failure to assi#n it as error. ?hile an assi#nment of error which is re+uired by law or rule of court has been held essential to appellate review" and only those assi#ned will be considered" there are a number of cases which appear to accord to the appellate court a broad discretionary power to waive this lack of proper assi#nment of errors and consider errors not assi#ned. The same principle was reiterated in the 8::5 case of 32S2 1474-4N5 R5F27TF 35R-. vs. 51143E 51 T:E -RES4DENT .*1 S3R2 1@5 :E7D/ 0?hile the rule is that no error unless stated in the assi#nment or errors" courts broad discretionary power such that the issues submitted for resolution which i#nored.5 which does not affect jurisdiction will be considered the trend in modern'day procedure is to accord the the appellate court may consider matters bearin# on the parties failed to raise or which the lower court

(et us look at the second e=ception G plain errors. ?hat is a &(ain error < &ecause a plain error can be corrected by the appellate court even if not asked by the parties" plain man< !f you will ask me" any plain error is yun# tala#an# obvious mistake G one which is apparent to the eye.

127

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 51 Judgment

2ow" suppose the trial court made an error in applyin# a law or in interpretin# a law. &ut it was not attacked by the losin# party and it was not corrected on appeal. !s it a plain error< !t would seem no and yet that is what happened in the 8:: case of .A2T1. vs. CA D998 .C)A 69E. &ut before we discuss the case of .antos" we have to know the basics. There are two principles here to remember. The appellant is the one who appeals and it is he who will file the appellant%s brief and then he will make the assi#nment of errors. The appellee will refute the appellant%s assi#nment of errors which were committed by the trial court. >/ Can the appellee impute errors or make assi#nment of errors< A/ The #eneral rule is 21. !f you are an appellee" you are not appealin# and thus you are acceptin# the decision. .o if you think the decision is in your favor pero mali pa rin" you must also appeal. .o an appellee is not allowed to assi#n errors committed by the trial court e=cept if the purpose of the assi#nment of errors is to sustain the decision on another #round. &ecause sometimes you a#ree with the decision but you do not a#ree with the reason. The decision is correct but this should be the reason. &ecause actually" you are defendin# the decision on another #round. ,eanin# the court made a mistake in arrivin# at the decision but the decision is correct. Yan" puwede yan. &ut if you want the decision to be chan#ed" then you must also appeal. 2ow" let us #o to the case of S.N/OS which involves the law on lease" particularly the interpretation and the application of Article 8*@H Civil Code. 4nder the law on lease" suppose ! will rent to you my land and you built a buildin# there and there is no a#reement as to who will own the buildin# after the termination of the lease. .uppose there is no stipulation" who will own the buildin#< Accordin# to the Civil Code" the owner of the land has the option to ac+uire the buildin# by payin# one half of its value. 7ero" if ! do not want to appropriate the buildin#" then you have the ri#ht to remove the buildin# provided you will not dama#e the land. .o the option to pay you belon#s to the owner of the land. The lessee cannot compel the owner of the land to pay. (et us #o now to the case of .antos. This is a very +ueer case. S2NT5S vs. 35URT 51 2--E27S 998 .C)A 69 123TS/ Artemio .antos et al are lessees of a piece of land. They have not paid the rentals for 9H years. The lessor filed a case of unlawful detainer a#ainst all of them before the ,etropolitan Trial Court of 7asi#. The trial court rendered jud#ment a#ainst .antos et al. .o they were ordered ejected. 2ow" these people were not satisfied. They still appealed to the )TC. The )TC affirmed the jud#ment that they should be ejected but modified it by orderin# the lessor to reimburse the lessees for the latter%s improvements on the leased property. .o" affirmed" but bayaran mo iyon# m#a bahay n# m#a tao. D3EA2 !/ To my mind" that portion of the decision is wron#. You cannot order the lessor to reimburse.E &ut despite that" .antos et al were not satisfied. They still appealed to the CA. The lessor did not appeal so obviously" the lessor is willin# to pay. Althou#h he has no obli#ation to pay the improvements" pero si#e na lan# para matapos naI Fe did not appeal. 2ow" the CA affirmed a#ain the ejectment. .o tatlo na. There were three courts where the occupants lost. &ut the CA deleted the portion of the )TC decision orderin# reimbursement of the improvements. !t was really wron#. ?alan# reimbursement diyan. .o this time" .antos et al appealed to the .C. And they say that the portion of the decision deletin# our ri#ht to reimbursements is wron# because the owner of the land is not +uestionin# it" he is not appealin# so why should the CA delete it< .o" meanin# paya# iyon# owner. Therefore that portion of the decision of the CA where we are no lon#er entitled to reimbursement is

128

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 51 Judgment

erroneous. The CA has no power to delete that portion of the )TC decision because there was no appeal from the landowner. 4SSUE/ !s the decision of the CA correct< :E7D/ YE.. The CA is correct. 0!t is true that the rule is well'settled that a party cannot impu#n the correctness of a ;ud#ment not appealed from by him" and while he may make counter'assi#nment of errors" he can do so only to sustain the jud#ment on other #rounds but not to seek modification or reversal thereof for in such a case he must appeal. A party who does not appeal from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he has obtained from the lower court" if any" whose decision is brou#ht up on appeal. Fowever" the )ules of Court and jurisprudence authori-e a tribunal to consider errors" althou#h unassi#ned" if they involve D8E errors affectin# the lower courtJs ;urisdiction over the subject matter" D9E plain errors not specified" and D E clerical errors.5 04nder Article 8*@H" it is the lessor who has the option to pay for one'half of the value of the improvements which the lessee has made in #ood faith. The lessee cannot compel the lessor to appropriate and reimburse.5 Therefore" the decision of the )TC orderin# the lessor is actually erroneous. 0Fence" the award of reimbursement for improvements by the trial court in favor of petitioners amounts to a plain error which may be rectified on appeal althou#h not specified in the appellee%s brief.5 &ut the trouble is" the landowner did not appeal. !f we follow the rulin#" then lahat n# mali n# trial court ay plain error na. That is what the .C said. &akit man na#in# plain error ito when actually it will not +ualify as plain error < !f we will follow that line of reasonin#" every mistake committed by a trial court can be corrected bein# a plain error. To my mind" meron# e+uity ito" eh. Analy-e the case. You are occupants for 9H years and you did not pay. Ayaw mo lumayas" bayaran ka pa< There is somethin# wron# there already. ! think that is the factor eh. .o the .C said that it is too unfair for the landowner still to be re+uired to pay. !ma#ine they stayed there for 9H years" hindi pa na#bayad. ! think those are the factors. .o in other words" e+uity bahI .o the Court has to look for a reason to justify. An# nakita is plain error G when you do not know how to apply the law" then it is plain error. &ut actually" that should be an assi#ned error. !t is a very interestin# case. Sec. /. Promu( ation and notice of jud ment . 2fter the <ud$(e#t of f"#al resolut"o# a#d d"sse#t"#$ or separate op"#"o#s' "f a#y' are s"$#ed &y the Just"ces tak"#$ part' they shall &e del"!ered for f"l"#$ to the clerk %ho shall "#d"cate thereo# the date of pro(ul$at"o# a#d cause true cop"es thereof to &e ser!ed upo# the part"es or the"r cou#sel. )#0 Sec. 1+. Entr" of jud ments and fina( reso(utions . 4f #o appeal or (ot"o# for #e% tr"al or reco#s"derat"o# "s f"led %"th"# the t"(e pro!"ded "# these Rules' the <ud$(e#t or f"#al resolut"o# shall forth%"th &e e#tered &y the clerk "# the &ook of e#tr"es of <ud$(e#ts. The date %he# the <ud$(e#t or f"#al resolut"o# &eco(es e?ecutory shall &e dee(ed as the date of "ts e#try. The record shall co#ta"# the d"spos"t"!e part of the <ud$(e#t or f"#al resolut"o# a#d shall &e s"$#ed &y the clerk' %"th a cert"f"cate that such <ud$(e#t or f"#al resolut"o# has &eco(e f"#al a#d e?ecutory. ).a' R9@0 Sec. 11. E0ecution of jud ment. E?cept %here the <ud$(e#t or f"#al order or resolut"o#' or a port"o# thereof' "s ordered to &e "((ed"ately e?ecutory' the (ot"o# for "ts e?ecut"o# (ay o#ly &e f"led "# the proper court after "ts e#try. 4# or"$"#al act"o#s "# the 3ourt of 2ppeals' "ts %r"t of e?ecut"o# shall &e acco(pa#"ed &y a cert"f"ed true copy of the e#try of <ud$(e#t or f"#al resolut"o# a#d addressed to a#y appropr"ate off"cer for "ts e#force(e#t. 4# appealed cases' %here the (ot"o# for e?ecut"o# pe#d"#$ appeal "s f"led "# the 3ourt of 2ppeals at a t"(e that "t "s "# possess"o# of the or"$"#al record or the record

129

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 51 Judgment

o# appeal' the resolut"o# $ra#t"#$ such (ot"o# shall &e tra#s("tted to the lo%er court fro( %h"ch the case or"$"#ated' to$ether %"th a cert"f"ed true copy of the <ud$(e#t or f"#al order to &e e?ecuted' %"th a d"rect"!e for such court of or"$"# to "ssue the proper %r"t for "ts e#force(e#t. )#0 >/ 2ow" how do you e=ecute a jud#ment of the CA< A/ 4nder .ection 88" it depends if it is an ori#inal action or an appealed case. Kor an appealed case" in case of e=ecution pendin# appeal" take note that if the records of the case are already elevated to the CA" motion for e=ecution pendin# appeal should already be filed there. And if the CA #rants the motion to e=ecute pendin# appeal" it will follow the third para#raph there. !t will issue the order and direct the )TC to enforce the jud#ment. 2ow" you should correlate this with )ule : .ections 8 and 9/ Rule 9/' Sect"o# 1. E0ecution u&on jud ments or fina( orders. E?ecut"o# shall "ssue as a (atter of r"$ht' o# (ot"o# ' upo# a <ud$(e#t or order that d"sposed of the act"o# or proceed"#$ upo# the e?p"rat"o# of the per"od to appeal therefro( "f #o appeal has &ee# duly perfected. 4f the appeal has &ee# duly perfected a#d f"#ally resol!ed' the e?ecut"o# (ay forth%"th &e appl"ed for "# the court or or"$"#' o# (ot"o# of the <ud$(e#t o&l"$ee' su&("tt"#$ there%"th cert"f"ed true cop"es of the <ud$(e#t or <ud$(e#ts or f"#al order or orders sou$ht to &e e#forced a#d of the e#try thereof' %"th #ot"ce to the ad!erse party. The appellate court (ay' o# (ot"o# "# the sa(e case' %he# the "#terest of <ust"ce so re>u"res' d"rect the court of or"$"# to "ssue the %r"t of e?ecut"o#. Sect"o# .. %iscretionar" e0ecution. 2. E0ecution of a jud ment or fina( order &endin a&&ea( . 5# (ot"o# of the pre!a"l"#$ party %"th #ot"ce to the ad!erse party f"led "# the tr"al court %h"le "t has <ur"sd"ct"o# o!er the case a#d "s "# possess"o# of e"ther the or"$"#al record or the record o# appeal' as the case (ay &e' at the t"(e of the f"l"#$ of such (ot"o#' sa"d court (ay' "# "ts d"scret"o#' order e?ecut"o# of a <ud$(e#t or f"#al order e!e# &efore the e?p"rat"o# of the per"od to appeal. 2fter the tr"al court has lost <ur"sd"ct"o#' the (ot"o# for e?ecut"o# pe#d"#$ appeal (ay &e f"led "# the appellate court. D"scret"o#ary e?ecut"o# (ay o#ly "ssue upo# $ood reaso#s to &e stated "# a spec"al order after due hear"#$. ,. E0ecution of severa(1 se&arate or &artia( jud ments . 2 se!eral' separate or part"al <ud$(e#t (ay &e e?ecuted u#der the sa(e ter(s a#d co#d"t"o#s as e?ecut"o# of a <ud$(e#t or f"#al order pe#d"#$ appeal. 'o1o'

130