Soriano v. Ramirez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an action for the recovery of a sum of money, wherein the Court of First Instance of Surigao rendered a decision on June 30, 1922, absolving the defendant from the complaint. The plaintiff, Francisco Soriano, was notified of this judgment on July 12, 1922. Procedural History: Following the adverse judgment, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on July 14, 1922, asserting that the evidence did not justify the decision and that it was contrary to law and facts. This motion was denied by the court on July 26, 1922. The plaintiff then filed a timely bill of exceptions, which was approved on August 19, 1922. After the docket fee was paid and the bill of exceptions was printed and served, the defendant-appellee received copies of the appellant's brief. The defendant-appellee subsequently moved for an extension to file his brief, and after this extension expired, he filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on December 11, 1922. The Supreme Court granted this motion ex parte on December 22, 1922, dismissing the appeal. The plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal, which is the matter before the court. The Petition: The plaintiff-appellant seeks reconsideration of the Supreme Court's resolution dated December 22, 1922, which dismissed his appeal. He argues that the dismissal was erroneous, particularly given that the defendant-appellee did not raise objections to the motion for new trial or the bill of exceptions in the lower court and only moved for dismissal after receiving the appellant's brief and the expiration of an extension for his own brief. The core of the plaintiff's argument hinges on the validity of the trial court's action on his motion for new trial, which was filed within the legal period and with notice to the adverse party, despite not specifying the date and place of hearing, contending that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on it under section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to pass upon the motion for a new trial despite the notice to the adverse party not stating the date and place of hearing. Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court was proper under the circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of December 22, 1922, reinstated the cause, and granted the appellee the extension of fifteen days to file his brief, to be computed from the date of notice of the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the trial court to pass upon the motion for a new trial: The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to pass upon the motion for a new trial. Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an application for a new trial shall be made by motion in writing, stating the grounds therefor, of which the adverse party shall have such reasonable notice as the judge may direct. While Articles 9 and 10 of the Rules of the Courts of First Instance require that notices of motions state the date and place of hearing, Article 9 contains an exception recognizing that the provisions of the statute prevail over the Rules. The Code of Civil Procedure leaves it to the discretion of the judge to order the notification to the adverse party. In this case, the motion was made in writing, stating the grounds, and notice was given to the adverse party, albeit without specifying the date and place of hearing. Since the motion was denied, the Court found no necessity to give notice of the hearing, as no prejudice would be caused to the appellee by the denial. If the motion were to be granted, then notification would have been necessary. On the propriety of the dismissal of the appeal: The Court found that the appellee did not raise any objection in the Court of First Instance regarding the alleged irregularity in the filing of the motion for new trial, nor did he object to the approval of the bill of exceptions. Furthermore, the motion for dismissal of the appeal was filed in the Supreme Court only after the appellee had received copies of the bill of exceptions and the appellant's brief, and after the expiration of the extension he had applied for to file his brief. Applying the doctrine that no objection to the procedure in the lower court will be considered on appeal unless an objection or exception was made in the lower court, the Court concluded that the dismissal was improper under these circumstances. The Court distinguished the present case from Manakil and Tison vs. Revilla and Tuaño and Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa vs. Municipality of Unisan, where the motions for new trial were either filed out of time or not urged for hearing within the legal period, which were not the circumstances in the instant case.
Main Doctrine
A trial court has jurisdiction to pass upon a motion for new trial filed within the reglementary period, even if the notice to the adverse party did not state the date and place of hearing, as the judge has the discretion to order such notification, and if the motion is denied, no prejudice is caused to the adverse party. The dismissal of an appeal based on procedural irregularities in the motion for new trial, when such irregularities were not objected to in the lower court and were only raised after the appellee received copies of the bill of exceptions and appellant's brief and after the extension for filing his brief had expired, may be set aside.