Montejo v. Cabangon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jeremias Montejo filed a case against respondents Soledad Nerona and Judge Domingo Cabangon, seeking to be retained as a tenant on a landholding and to have his annual rental fixed at six (6) cavans of palay, with reimbursement for alleged excess rentals paid. Montejo claimed a leasehold tenancy contract for six agricultural years, starting crop year 1954-1955, paying 15 cavans annually. He alleged he was verbally notified to surrender the landholding on April 2, 1960, after delivering the rental for the recent crop. He provided production figures for the land. Respondents, however, denied Montejo was their tenant, asserting that Dionisio Merced was the tenant since crop year 1956-1957, succeeding Amado Malay, and that Merced agreed to pay 15 cavans annually. Their leasehold contract with Merced was set to terminate after the 1959-1960 agricultural year as they intended to cultivate the land themselves. Procedural History: The Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) dismissed Montejo's petition, finding that he was not the tenant of the respondents, but Dionisio or Patricio Merced, who could remain as tenant if he so desired. The CAR based its decision on the observation that Montejo's testimony was unnatural and that his claim of delivering rentals to Soledad Nerona was unbelievable, as she resided in Manila. The Petition: Montejo, without taking further steps in the trial court, directly filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal was perfected in accordance with law. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for review. Whether the findings of the Court of Agrarian Relations regarding the tenancy status are supported by substantial evidence.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations has become final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the appeal was perfected in accordance with law: The Court held that the appeal was not perfected. The decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations was rendered on November 29, 1960, and Montejo was notified on December 15, 1960. While Montejo filed a notice of appeal in the court below, he immediately and directly presented his petition for review in the Supreme Court. Section 13 of Republic Act No. 1267, as amended by Republic Act No. 1409, and Section 1, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court require that an appeal by certiorari be perfected by filing a notice of appeal with the lower court and a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court within fifteen days from notice of the decision. Montejo's failure to comply with the procedural requirements for perfecting an appeal meant that the decision of the CAR had become final and executory. On Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for review: The Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Since Montejo failed to perfect his appeal as legally required, the judgment of the court below became final and executory, thereby depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the petition were treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 67, it would still fail because no question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion was raised, but merely an alleged "gross error" in the findings of fact, for which appeal is the adequate remedy, even if the period for appeal has elapsed. On Whether the findings of the Court of Agrarian Relations regarding the tenancy status are supported by substantial evidence: The Court did not reach the substantive issue of whether the findings of the CAR were supported by substantial evidence because the appeal was not perfected. The Court reiterated that failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision in the court below precluded the petitioner from questioning the findings of the respondent Judge before the Supreme Court. The Court cited Tabiolo, et al. v. Marquez to support this procedural bar. Therefore, the substantive merits of the case, including the factual determination of tenancy, were not reviewed by the Supreme Court due to the procedural defect.
Main Doctrine
Failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Additionally, failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision in the trial court precludes questioning the findings of the judge before the appellate court.