Balmeo v. Deveza
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the partition of properties between Eriberto Balmeo and Segunda Deveza, et al. Following a previous ruling in case G.R. No. 37484, the parties were ordered to proceed with the partition, and upon their failure to agree, the court was to appoint commissioners. 2. Procedural History: The parties failed to reach an agreement, leading the court to appoint commissioners. Their report, recommending a specific apportionment, was objected to by Segunda Deveza. The court approved the report on July 11, 1934. Deveza's counsel excepted and later filed a motion for a new hearing, alleging the inclusion of sold properties and exclusion of paid credits. The court suspended the appeal period on July 24, 1934. On August 27, 1934, the motion for a new hearing was denied, and Deveza's counsel excepted and announced an appeal, filing a bill of exceptions on September 5, 1934. The court subsequently disapproved the bill of exceptions on October 22, 1934, deeming the August 27th order non-appealable and the bill untimely for the July 11th order. 3. The Petition: Segunda Deveza filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to approve and certify her bill of exceptions. She argued that the bill was filed within the reglementary period, as the court's order suspending the appeal period effectively tolled the time for filing. The petition also contended that the motion for a new hearing raised legal grounds sufficient for review and that the delay in filing the petition did not constitute estoppel by laches.
Issue(s)
Whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the order denying the motion for new hearing was appealable or affected the appeal period for the original order. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the approval and certification of a bill of exceptions.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus is granted. The respondent judge is ordered to approve and certify the bill of exceptions. Costs are against the respondent Eriberto Balmeo.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the bill of exceptions was filed on time and in accordance with law. The Court reasoned that the order dated August 24, 1934, issued by the trial court upon motion of the attorney, suspended the legal effects of the order of July 11, 1934. This suspension ipso facto suspended the running of the period fixed by law for the filing of the necessary bill of exceptions. Therefore, the disapproval of the bill of exceptions on the ground that it was filed out of time was erroneous. On Issue 2: The Court clarified that while the order denying the motion for new hearing might not be directly appealable, the grounds presented in the motion were significant. Specifically, the allegation that the commissioners' report and the approving order were contrary to law was equivalent to one of the grounds on which an appellate court may review questions of law. Thus, the motion for new hearing, even if denied, did not preclude the right to appeal the original order of July 11, and the period for such appeal was indeed suspended during the pendency of the motion. The Court found that the disapproval of the bill of exceptions was due to a misunderstanding of which order was being appealed. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court affirmed that mandamus was the proper remedy. The petitioner had the right to appeal from the order of July 11 and to have her bill of exceptions approved and certified. When the lower court improperly disapproved the bill of exceptions, mandamus lay to compel the judge to perform his ministerial duty of approving and certifying it. The Court also addressed the insinuation of estoppel by laches, finding that the 42-day period between the denial of the motion for reconsideration and the filing of the mandamus petition did not constitute abandonment or negligence.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus, ordering the respondent judge to approve and certify the bill of exceptions. The Court found that the bill of exceptions was filed within the reglementary period because the trial court's order suspending the effects of its previous order effectively suspended the running of the period for appeal. The Court also clarified that the grounds for the motion for new hearing, alleging the partition was contrary to law, were sufficient to warrant review, and that the disapproval of the bill of exceptions was based on a misunderstanding of the order being appealed.