Esquivias v. Sison
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Fidelity and Surety Company of the Philippine Islands filed a civil case (No. 44947) against Sixto F. Esquivias, Tomas Geronimo, and Mario Guariña to recover a sum of money. Esquivias, through his attorneys Sierra & Esquivias, filed an answer with his address at 116 Tetuan Street, Manila. Procedural History: Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Notice of the decision was served on Attorney Cirilo Lim, who had provisionally appeared during the trial in the absence of Esquivias's attorneys, at 456 Dasmariñas Street, Manila, instead of on Sierra & Esquivias at their registered address. Esquivias was informed of the decision on February 23, 1934, and immediately excepted, filing a motion for new trial on February 28, 1934. The motion for new trial was denied on March 3, 1934, but no notice of the denial was served. Esquivias, upon unofficial information on March 13, 1934, excepted to the denial and gave notice of his intention to appeal. He filed his bill of exceptions on March 22, 1934. The respondent judge refused to certify it on March 31, 1934. A motion for reconsideration was denied on April 21, 1934, and a subsequent motion for new trial under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also denied on July 14, 1934. The Petition: Esquivias filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to certify and approve his bill of exceptions.
Issue(s)
Whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the statutory period. Whether the petition for mandamus was filed out of time.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is denied. The Court held that the bill of exceptions was filed on time, but the petition for mandamus was filed too late.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the bill of exceptions: The Court found that the notice of the decision was improperly served on Attorney Cirilo Lim, who was not the attorney of record for Sixto F. Esquivias. The rules required notices to be addressed to the office of the attorney who had entered an appearance. Since Esquivias was not duly notified of the decision until February 23, 1934, the period for filing his motion for new trial commenced on that date. His motion for new trial, filed on February 28, 1934, was within the 30-day reglementary period. Furthermore, neither Esquivias nor his attorneys were notified of the order denying the motion for new trial. Esquivias learned of this denial unofficially on March 13, 1934, and within the 5-day period, he excepted and gave notice of his intention to appeal. His bill of exceptions was filed on March 22, 1934, which was within the 10-day period allowed for filing a bill of exceptions. Therefore, the bill of exceptions was filed within the statutory period, and it was the duty of the respondent judge to approve and certify it if complete. On the timeliness of the petition for mandamus: The Court cited Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to apply for mandamus at the "next term of the Supreme Court" if the judge fails to certify a bill of exceptions without fault of the party. However, the Court also referenced the case of Cortes vs. Court of First Instance of Capiz, which held that delay in applying for mandamus beyond a reasonable time, generally not exceeding the longest period allowed for action in the lower court (30 days), constitutes laches. In this case, the petitioner filed his petition for mandamus approximately six months after the last order denying his motion for reconsideration and new trial. This delay was deemed excessive and barred by laches, as execution had already issued and the petitioner's property had been sold at public auction.
Main Doctrine
Service of notice of a decision on an attorney who provisionally appeared in a case, and not on the attorney of record, is invalid. A petition for mandamus filed six months after the last judicial action is considered filed out of time.