Arambulo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Severino Arambulo, upon assuming office as Mayor of Calamba, Laguna, dismissed thirteen municipal patrolmen and replaced them. Three dismissed patrolmen appealed to the Provincial Governor, who warned the Mayor of suspension if they were not reinstated. Mayor Arambulo filed a prohibition case against the Governor. The Court of First Instance ordered the reinstatement of the patrolmen, finding their removal illegal, but did not specify who should pay their back salaries. Procedural History: The reinstated patrolmen sought payment of back salaries from the Municipality of Calamba, but the Provincial Auditor refused, citing an unnumbered Provincial Circular from the Office of the President dated February 9, 1955, which made municipal mayors personally responsible for salaries of employees illegally separated without cause. The Commissioner of Civil Service also opined that the Municipal Mayor was responsible for the back salaries. The three patrolmen then filed a case against Mayor Arambulo in his personal capacity for back salaries, litigation expenses, attorney's fees, and moral damages. Mayor Arambulo filed a third-party complaint against the Municipality of Calamba, asserting its liability for the back salaries. The Municipality admitted its liability and stated that its council had appropriated funds for such payment. The patrolmen moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the Justice of the Peace Court granted, ordering the Municipality to pay the back salaries and absolving Mayor Arambulo. The patrolmen appealed to the Court of First Instance only regarding Mayor Arambulo's personal liability. The Municipality filed a motion to set aside a writ of execution issued by the Justice of the Peace Court and later a motion to intervene, which the Court of First Instance denied, holding that the judgment against the Municipality had become final and executory as it did not appeal. The Municipality then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals rendered judgment ordering the Court of First Instance to grant the Municipality's motions to intervene and to set aside the writ of execution, and revoking the order denying the Municipality's motion for reconsideration. Mayor Severino Arambulo seeks the reversal of this judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal taken by the plaintiffs against the defendant vacates the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace or municipal court as between the appealing plaintiffs and the defendant, but not as regards the third-party defendant that has not appealed. Whether the Court of First Instance of Laguna is empowered to issue an alias writ of execution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the appeal vacates the judgment as to the third-party defendant: The Supreme Court held that an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Justice of the Peace Court to the Court of First Instance vacates the judgment of the former court not only as between the plaintiffs who appealed and the defendant against whom the appeal is taken, but also as to the third-party defendant which has not appealed therefrom. This is in accordance with Section 9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which provides that a perfected appeal shall operate to vacate the judgment of the justice of the peace or the municipal court, and the action shall stand for trial de novo upon its merits in the Court of First Instance. The Court emphasized that the appeal reopens all issues or questions already passed upon by the inferior court, regardless of who appeals. Therefore, the admission of liability by the Municipality of Calamba in the Justice of the Peace Court was effectively vacated and submitted for determination by the appellate court. On the issue of whether the Court of First Instance of Laguna is empowered to issue an alias writ of execution: The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance of Laguna is not empowered to issue an alias writ of execution. Section 8, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that execution must issue from the court in which the judgment or order is entered. Since the judgment sought to be executed was rendered by the Justice of the Peace Court of Calamba, only that court could issue the writ of execution. The Court of First Instance, in the context of the appeal, was to conduct a trial de novo, not to enforce a judgment that had been vacated by the appeal.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from a judgment of an inferior court to the Court of First Instance vacates the judgment of the inferior court not only as between the appealing parties and the defendant against whom the appeal is taken, but also as to any third-party defendant who did not appeal therefrom, thereby reopening all issues for trial de novo.