Castro v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from an unlawful detainer and collection of rentals complaint filed by Felipe de Santos against Basilio de Castro. The Municipal Court of Manila initially dismissed the complaint. However, upon appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Judge Arsenio Locsin, the proceedings continued. During this period, the Mayor of Manila issued an order under Executive Order No. 117, fixing the monthly rental for the premises at P100. 2. Procedural History: Following the Mayor's order, petitioner de Castro filed a constancia informing the Court of First Instance. Despite this, Judge Locsin issued a decision ordering de Castro to vacate and pay P140 monthly. De Castro sought to appeal this decision, filing a record on appeal. However, Judge Locsin, after hearing an opposition from respondent Santos, ordered the exclusion of the constancia from the record. De Castro's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, and he was ordered to comply within five days, or his appeal would be disapproved. De Castro then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. Subsequently, Judge Locsin dismissed de Castro's appeal. De Castro then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance. The core of the dispute revolves around the exclusion of the constancia and the Mayor's decision from the record on appeal, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal. Petitioner argues that the exclusion and dismissal were erroneous, particularly given the circumstances of the case and the need for a liberal interpretation of procedural rules to ensure a just resolution. The Supreme Court, in its decision, affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, finding no error in the exclusion of the documents and the dismissal of the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for mandamus to compel the Court of First Instance to approve the record on appeal including the 'constancia' and the Mayor's decision. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in ordering the exclusion of the 'constancia' and the Mayor's decision from the record on appeal. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the appeal despite the pendency of other motions and petitions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, denying the petition for certiorari. The preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved. The Court ordered the delivery of the deposited rents to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the exclusion of the 'constancia' and the Mayor's decision: The Court held that the 'constancia' and the Mayor's decision were not formally offered as evidence during the trial and were filed after the case was submitted for decision. As such, they had no place in the record on appeal. Rule 41, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, which governs the inclusion of documents in a record on appeal, refers to pleadings and interlocutory orders filed before submission for decision. The Court emphasized that documents not presented or offered at the hearing cannot be considered as evidence, and the appellate court cannot consider them either. The inclusion of such documents would lead to confusion in judicial proceedings. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not follow the procedure outlined in Rule 37 of the Rules of Court for admitting them as evidence. On the propriety of mandamus: The Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus can only issue to compel a judge to perform a ministerial duty, not to direct how he should act or to compel him to decide in a particular way. The act of approving a record on appeal, which involves determining the correctness and completeness of the bill of exceptions, is not ministerial but involves judicial discretion. Therefore, the CA correctly denied the petition for mandamus as the act sought to be compelled was not purely ministerial. On the dismissal of the appeal: The Court found that the petitioner, by filing a petition for mandamus instead of complying with the order to amend the record on appeal, chose to stand on his original record. If the mandamus proceedings were unsuccessful, he would be deemed to have failed to file the amended record on appeal within the time fixed by the court, leading to the dismissal of his appeal. The Court stated that while the dismissal might not have been entirely correct at the time it was decreed, it became well-founded as a consequence of the present decision affirming the CA's ruling. The petitioner's contention that the dismissal was premature was also addressed by the Court's affirmation of the CA's decision, which effectively validated the CFI's actions.
Main Doctrine
The inclusion of documents not formally offered as evidence during the trial, filed after the case was submitted for decision, in a record on appeal is not permissible and may be excluded by the trial court. The appellate court may not consider such documents. A petition for mandamus will not lie to compel the trial judge to include such documents, as the act of approving a record on appeal involves discretion and is not merely ministerial.