Sy It v. Tiangco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Arsenio Tiangco and Bola Singh Pabla initiated two separate ejectment cases against Ang Yee King and Sy It, respectively, before the Municipal Court of Manila. The basis for these actions was the alleged termination of monthly lease contracts for properties occupied by the defendants. Instead of filing their answers, both defendants jointly moved to dismiss the complaints, asserting that the causes of action were barred by a prior judgment and that the complaints failed to state a cause of action. The Municipal Court denied this motion. 2. Procedural History: Following the denial of their motion to dismiss, Ang Yee King and Sy It, as co-defendants, jointly filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to annul the Municipal Court's order. The respondents in the certiorari petition moved for summary judgment, which the Court of First Instance granted, dismissing the petition and dissolving the injunction. Petitioners sought reconsideration of this decision, which was denied. A subsequent motion for reconsideration of the denial was also denied. The trial court then issued an order setting aside its previous denial of reconsideration, but later reconsidered this, declaring the decision final and executory for Ang Yee King, but not for Sy It, for whom a copy of the decision had not been proven to have been served. Sy It subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's decision, which was denied, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Sy It, the petitioner-appellant, is before the Supreme Court on purely questions of law, appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance. The appeal is predicated on the argument that the trial court erred in its procedural rulings, particularly concerning the finality of its earlier decisions and the allowance of Sy It's appeal despite the alleged finality of the judgment. The Supreme Court, however, found the appeal untenable, primarily because the decision of the trial court had already become final and executory when the appeal was perfected, rendering the trial court without jurisdiction to give it due course. The Court also noted procedural flaws, including the failure to file a motion for reconsideration before filing the initial certiorari petition and the late filing of subsequent motions, which were beyond the reglementary periods.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period. Whether the trial court erred in declaring the decision final and executory with respect to Ang Yee King but not Sy It. Whether the petition for certiorari was proper given the failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the Municipal Court.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the trial court dated February 11, 1959, had already become final and executory when the appeal was perfected, rendering it beyond the jurisdiction of the said court to give course to the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the perfection of appeal: The Court held that the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. The decision of February 11, 1959, was served on counsel Enrico I. de la Cruz on February 17, 1959. The motion for reconsideration was filed on March 12, 1959, which is 23 days after receipt of notice. This period exceeds the 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal. The Court noted that although counsel Jordan Techico represented Sy It in the municipal court, both petitioners jointly filed the petition for certiorari and were represented by both counsel de la Cruz and Techico in the CFI. Therefore, service upon one counsel was deemed service upon the other. The subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by counsel de la Cruz, explicitly stating it was in collaboration with and on behalf of counsel Techico, further solidified the joint representation. The Court emphasized that in a petition for certiorari, the appeal must be perfected within 15 days from notice of the decision, and a motion for reconsideration must be filed within this period. Since the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond this period, the decision had already become final and executory. On the trial court's declaration of finality: The Court found that the trial court's subsequent orders, which attempted to set aside the denial of the motion for reconsideration and declared the decision not yet final for Sy It, were issued without jurisdiction. The initial motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period. Even when the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on April 24, 1959, a copy of which was received by counsel Techico on May 5, 1959, the subsequent motion for reconsideration of this order was filed on July 29, 1959, 84 days later. This also exceeded the reglementary period, rendering the order of April 24, 1959, final and executory. The trial court's attempt to revive the case for Sy It by ordering service of the decision upon his counsel was an act beyond its jurisdiction, as the decision had already attained finality. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court pointed out that a fundamental flaw in the procedural history was the failure of the appellants to file a motion for reconsideration before the Municipal Court after their motion to dismiss was denied. Instead, they immediately filed a petition for certiorari. This bypassed the established rule that a party must first give the lower court an opportunity to correct its errors through a motion for reconsideration before resorting to a petition for certiorari. This procedural misstep alone was sufficient ground for the dismissal of the appeal.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not lie if the decision sought to be reviewed has already become final and executory due to the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period, including the period for filing a motion for reconsideration. Service of notice upon one of jointly retained counsel is binding upon all petitioners.