Sherman v. Horrilleno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a civil suit filed by Herman Schuck against Richard Sherman in the justice of the peace court of the municipal district of Talipao, Province of Sulu. Following a trial, the justice of the peace court rendered a judgment in favor of Herman Schuck. Procedural History: Richard Sherman, the petitioner, filed a notice of appeal within the statutory period. This appeal was subsequently filed, registered, and docketed in the Court of First Instance for the Province of Sulu within the allowed timeframe. However, Herman Schuck filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting that Sherman had not complied with the requirements of section 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 3615. The respondent judge granted this motion, dismissing the appeal and thereby making a final disposition of the legal proceedings in the Court of First Instance. The Petition: This case is an application for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the respondent judge to annul all orders dismissing the petitioner's appeal and to allow the appeal to proceed. The petitioner argues that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary courts of law to enforce his rights, as required by section 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to annul an order dismissing an appeal. Whether the appeal was properly perfected.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The Court held that the allegations in the petition that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law cannot be admitted.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy: The Court held that the allegations in the petition that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law cannot be admitted. This is in accordance with established jurisprudence that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that lies only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to the petitioner. The existence of such an alternative remedy bars the issuance of the writ. The Court cited Fajardo vs. Llorente to support this principle. Therefore, since the petitioner failed to establish the absence of other adequate remedies, the writ of mandamus cannot be granted. On whether the appeal was properly perfected: While the respondent judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not properly perfected according to law, the Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of this particular issue. The denial of the petition for mandamus was based on the procedural ground that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the absence of other adequate remedies. The Court's ruling in Mejia vs. Alimorong was cited to emphasize that the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of First Instance constituted a final disposition of the legal proceeding then pending before it. However, the primary reason for denying the writ was the availability of other remedies, not the correctness of the dismissal itself.
Main Doctrine
A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel a judge to annul an order dismissing an appeal if there exists another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law.