Salcedo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Remedios V. Rodriguez filed a complaint against Leopoldo Salcedo in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, seeking recognition of her child, Ricardo Eulogio Rodriguez, allegedly begotten by Salcedo. The complaint also sought support, damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Salcedo failed to file an answer after being declared in default, leading to a judgment ordering him to acknowledge the child, provide monthly support of P200.00, and pay substantial damages and attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: Following the default judgment and subsequent issuance of an alias writ of execution, Salcedo filed a motion to set aside the decision and execution, claiming he only learned of the case upon service of the writ. This motion was denied by the trial court. Salcedo then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals challenging the validity of the summons service, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, Salcedo attempted to file a notice of appeal from the original decision, but this was denied, and the appeal was ordered dismissed. He then filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel the lower court to approve his record on appeal, which was also dismissed. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing Salcedo's petition for mandamus. Salcedo seeks to compel the Court of First Instance of Quezon to approve his record on appeal and nullify the writ of execution. The core of his argument is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to allegedly invalid service of summons. However, the Supreme Court finds that the issues regarding the validity of summons service and the denial of his earlier motions and petitions have already been decided and have become final, rendering his current petition without merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus to compel the approval of the record on appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for extension to file a record on appeal, as the judgment sought to be appealed had long become final and executory. Consequently, the petition for mandamus to compel the approval of the belated appeal was also correctly dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed no error in denying the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal. This was because the petitioner had failed to appeal the orders denying his earlier motions to set aside the judgment and the default order within the reglementary period. These orders, along with the judgment on the merits, had attained finality. The subsequent petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the summons service was also dismissed by the Court of Appeals and no further appeal was filed, further solidifying the finality of the proceedings. Therefore, any attempt to appeal the judgment on the merits at such a late stage was impermissible. On Issue 2: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for mandamus. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, but not to control discretion. In this case, the trial court's denial of the motion for extension to file a record on appeal was a proper exercise of discretion, given that the judgment had long become final. The petitioner's claim of invalid summons service had already been passed upon and resolved against him in previous proceedings that had become final. Therefore, there was no legal basis to compel the trial court to give due course to a belated appeal.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a petition for mandamus, holding that a trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying a belated appeal and subsequent motions. The Court emphasized that issues regarding the validity of summons service, having been raised and denied in prior motions from which no appeal was taken, and subsequently dismissed in a petition for certiorari, had attained finality. Consequently, the trial court's denial of a motion for extension to file a record on appeal was proper, as the original judgment had long become final and executory.