Casas v. Lesaca
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved civil case No. 4681 in the Court of First Instance of Albay, where Rosendo Ralla was the plaintiff and Marcelina Casas Vda. de Riosa was one of the defendants. The case proceeded to judgment, and subsequently, a motion was filed to modify the dispositive part of the judgment to order the petitioner to pay the plaintiff P2,400. 2. Procedural History: Marcelina Casas Vda. de Riosa was declared in default in civil case No. 4681. After a judgment was entered, a motion to modify the judgment to include a P2,400 payment from the petitioner was granted. The petitioner then sought to set aside this modified judgment and reopen the case under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was denied. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a bill of exceptions from this denial, but the respondent judge refused to approve and certify the bill of exceptions, deeming the appeal to be out of time. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed under section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner seeks to compel the respondent judge to approve and certify her bill of exceptions, arguing that her appeal from the order denying her motion to reopen the case was filed within the legally prescribed period. The core of the petition revolves around the timeliness of the appeal and the interpretation of the procedural rules regarding appeals from final and appealable orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen under Section 113 of Act No. 190 was filed within the reglementary period given the abolition of the common law 'term system' in Philippine procedure.
Ruling
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the appeal was interposed in due time. Consequently, a writ of mandamus was issued, directing the respondent judge to sign and certify the bill of exceptions. The costs were taxed against respondent Rosendo Ralla.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that an order denying a motion to reopen a case under Section 113 of Act No. 190 is a final and appealable order, supported by long-standing jurisprudence. While the original text of Section 143 of Act No. 190 referred to the 'ending of the term of court' as the period for filing a notice of appeal, the Court emphasized that the common law 'term system' was never imported into the Philippine judicial system. By amending Section 145 to fix a 30-day period for motions for new trial, the Legislature intended to adopt a uniform criterion for procedural finality and eliminate the confusion of the 'term system.' The Court reasoned that keeping two different periods for finality—one for new trials and one for simple appeals—would result in an anomaly. Thus, even without an express amendment to Section 143, the 30-day period from entry of judgment or notice of order applies to the perfection of a bill of exceptions. Applying this rule to the petitioner, her notice of appeal and bill of exceptions filed within 21 days were well within the 30-day limit, and the appeal was therefore interposed in due time. Consequently, the respondent judge erred in refusing to certify the bill of exceptions.
Main Doctrine
The order denying a motion to reopen a case under section 113 of Act No. 190 is final and appealable, and the procedure for perfecting an appeal from such an order is the same as that for appealing from a judgment. The thirty-day period for filing a motion for new trial, as amended by Act No. 2347, also governs the period for perfecting an appeal when no motion for new trial is filed, ensuring a uniform criterion for finality of judgments and appeal periods.