Veloso v. Pacheco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 28, 1901, the plaintiff, Martiniano Veloso y Grey, initiated an action of unlawful detainer against the defendant, Benita Pacheco, in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Procedural History: The judge initially ordered the case to be tried under the provisions of Article 1571 of the then-current Law of Civil Procedure. During the proceedings, the judge rejected the defendant's testimony, ruling that parties could not be witnesses under that law. A judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff on December 20, 1901. The Appeal: On January 4, 1902, the defendant moved for a new trial under Articles 113 and 145 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings, which had come into effect on October 1, 1901. The judge granted this motion, setting aside the judgment and ordering a retrial. The plaintiff appealed this order granting the new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the provisions of Articles 113 and 145 of the new Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings apply to judgments entered after October 1, 1901, even if the prior proceedings were conducted under the old Law of Civil Procedure. Whether an order granting a new trial is an appealable order.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The Court held that Articles 113 and 145 of the new Code apply to all judgments entered after October 1, 1901, regardless of the procedure followed prior to judgment. Furthermore, an order granting a new trial is an interlocutory order and is not subject to appeal until a final judgment is rendered.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court concluded that Articles 113 and 145 of the new Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings apply to all judgments entered after October 1, 1901. The Court reasoned that these articles provide new remedies not available under the former procedure, and their application should not be limited to cases commenced after the new Code took effect or those tried entirely under it. The Court viewed this as an addition of remedies rather than a substitution of procedures. The legislative intent was to provide these new remedies, such as a new trial for newly discovered evidence, irrespective of the procedural path taken before judgment, as the reasons for granting such remedies are independent of the specific trial method. Therefore, the judge correctly applied the new Code's provisions for a new trial to a judgment entered after October 1, 1901, even though the initial proceedings were under the old law. On Issue 2: The Court held that the order granting a new trial is not appealable. Citing Article 123 of the Code in force, the Court stated that no ruling, order, or judgment is subject to appeal to the Supreme Court until a final judgment is rendered for one party or the other. Article 146 further clarifies that decisions on motions for new trial shall not be grounds for exception. The granting of the motion for a new trial by the court below was a valid exercise of its jurisdiction, and the resulting order was interlocutory, meaning it did not finally resolve the merits of the case. Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal from this order was premature and thus dismissed.
Main Doctrine
The provisions of the new Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings regarding new trials, specifically Articles 113 and 145, apply to all judgments entered after October 1, 1901, regardless of whether the proceedings prior to the judgment were conducted under the old or new Code. Orders granting a new trial are interlocutory and not subject to appeal until a final judgment is rendered.