Lagrimas v. Zurbano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Florentino Importante filed an amended complaint for Damages against the Municipality of Tibiao, its Mayor, council members, and four private individuals, alleging violation of contractual rights over fish corrals. Provincial Fiscal Jose L. Lagrimas was included as a defendant in his official capacity. Procedural History: The basis for Fiscal Lagrimas' inclusion stemmed from his motion to dismiss Criminal Case No. 1185, which was filed against individuals allegedly violating municipal ordinances related to fish corrals. The plaintiff alleged that the dismissal of this criminal case prejudiced his rights and led to the loss of his fish corral. The Petition: Fiscal Lagrimas, believing he was included in the amended complaint due to the actions of the plaintiff's lawyers, filed a third-party complaint for damages against Attys. Buenaventura Tolentino, Esdras F. Tayco, and Calixto O. Zaldivar. He alleged they acted in bad faith, intending to cause him insult, humiliation, and to besmirch his reputation. The trial court denied the admission of this third-party complaint, citing that it did not meet the requirements of the Rules of Court and that his claim was unrelated to the plaintiff's claim. The court cited Cayapas vs. Court of First Instance of Albay. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The trial court then disapproved Fiscal Lagrimas' appeal, deeming the orders interlocutory. This led to the filing of a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the orders denying the admission of the third-party complaint and disapproving the appeal therefrom are interlocutory or final and appealable. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to approve the appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside and annulled the orders of the respondent court dated April 6, 1957, disapproving the record on appeal, and June 15, 1957, denying the motion for reconsideration. The respondent court was directed to approve, certify, and elevate the record on appeal to the appropriate appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the orders and the propriety of mandamus: The Court held that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to approve the appeal, as the petitioner had established a clear and certain right to invoke it. The orders appealed from were not interlocutory but were final and appealable. The order denying the admission of the third-party complaint finally disposed of the third-party plaintiff's action within the proceedings of the main case, leaving nothing more to be done with it in the Court of First Instance. This constituted a final order or judgment against the third-party plaintiff's action, which could only be remedied by an appeal. The Court emphasized that an order is deemed final when it finally disposes of the pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court, citing I Moran's Rules of the Court. Therefore, the respondent judge's declaration that the order was interlocutory was erroneous, and his subsequent disapproval of the appeal was an unlawful exclusion of the petitioner's right to appeal. On the merits of the third-party complaint: The Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the merits of the petition for certiorari in view of its conclusions regarding the finality of the orders and the propriety of mandamus. The primary concern was the procedural aspect of compelling the approval of the appeal from what was determined to be a final order.
Main Doctrine
An order denying the admission of a third-party complaint, which finally disposes of the third-party plaintiff's action within the proceedings of the main case, is a final and appealable order, not merely interlocutory, and mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the approval of the appeal therefrom.