Fuentebella v. Ocampo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a civil case, No. 55592, filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where Antonio T. Carrascoso, Jr. was the plaintiff and Jose Fuentebella was the defendant. The record of this case was destroyed during the liberation of Manila in February 1945. Procedural History: Following the destruction of the case record, Antonio T. Carrascoso, Jr. petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Judge Buenaventura Ocampo, to reconstitute the record. On July 26, 1947, the court issued an order reconstituting the record. Jose Fuentebella, the defendant in the original case, filed a notice of appeal from this reconstitution order on August 27, 1947, and subsequently filed a record on appeal. On September 20, 1947, the respondent judge disapproved this record on appeal for lack of merit. The Petition: Jose Fuentebella, as petitioner in the present action, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to admit his appeal from the order reconstituting the case record. He argues that the order of reconstitution is appealable. The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this petition for mandamus. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and relevant law, opines that an order for the reconstitution of a destroyed record is interlocutory and not appealable, and any prejudice can be raised on appeal from the final decision of the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether an order for the reconstitution of a destroyed record is appealable. Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel the admission of an appeal from an order of reconstitution.
Ruling
The complaint for mandamus is dismissed, with costs to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appealability of an order for reconstitution: The Court held that an order for the reconstitution of a destroyed record is interlocutory in character and, therefore, not appealable. This is in accordance with Rule 41, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. The Court cited the case of Walter E. Olsen & Co. vs. Olsen to support this principle. The nature of an interlocutory order is that it does not resolve the merits of the case but rather deals with preliminary matters or procedural issues. Allowing appeals from such orders would unduly delay the proceedings and clog the appellate courts. Any party who believes they are prejudiced by an order of reconstitution has the recourse to raise the issue on appeal from the final judgment rendered in the main case. This ensures that all issues are considered in a single appeal after the entire controversy has been adjudicated by the trial court. On the issuance of a writ of mandamus: Consequently, since the order of reconstitution is not appealable, the disapproval of the record on appeal by the respondent judge was proper. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels a ministerial duty. As there was no right to appeal from the interlocutory order, the judge had no ministerial duty to admit the record on appeal. Therefore, the petition for mandamus to compel the admission of the appeal was correctly dismissed. The petitioner's remedy lies in raising the issue of the reconstitution order during the appeal from the final decision of the civil case.
Main Doctrine
An order for the reconstitution of a destroyed record is interlocutory in character and not appealable. Any party considering himself prejudiced by the order of reconstitution may raise the point on an appeal which may be interposed from the final decision of the lower court in the case.