Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26321)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26321)
Facts:
The City of Cebu, City Council of the City of Cebu, Cebu City Treasurer, Cebu City Auditor and Mario D. Ortiz v. Hon. Jose M. Mendoza and Efren M. Arnejo, G.R. No. L-26321, February 25, 1975, the Supreme Court En Banc, Aquino, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner city officials (the City of Cebu, its City Council, Treasurer, Auditor, and Mayor Mario D. Ortiz) were respondents below in Civil Case No. R-8612, a mandamus action filed by Efren M. Arnejo seeking reinstatement as Acting Assistant Chief of Police and recovery of back salaries, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. After trial, Judge Jose M. Mendoza of the Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered judgment on September 10, 1965 ordering Arnejo’s reinstatement and awarding P5,000 exemplary damages, P500 attorney’s fees and costs. The decision was served on petitioners on October 18, 1965.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on October 23, 1965; Judge Mendoza denied it by order of November 26, 1965 (served December 1 on Ortiz and December 16 on the other respondents). Thereafter petitioners filed separate “second motions for reconsideration” (Ortiz on December 14, 1965; the other respondents on December 18, 1965) which the trial court denied on January 5, 1966 (service dates January 7 and January 10, 1966). On January 14–15, 1966 petitioners filed a notice of appeal and deposited the appeal bond; on February 4, 1966 Arnejo moved to dismiss the appeal as not properly perfected within the reglementary period. The trial court, in an order of February 18, 1966, dismissed the appeal, ruling the motions for reconsideration were pro forma and that the decision had become final and executory; subsequent motions for relief were denied.
Petitioners then filed special civil actions of mandamus and certiorari in the Supreme Court to compel the CFI to give due course to their appeal. The Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining execution of the CFI judgment; answers and memoranda were filed and the Court required supplemental memoranda when it could not secure the necessary majority on the pivotal procedural question. Supplemental facts appearing in the record show that Arnejo later served as Acting Chief of Police (Cebu and later Lapu‑Lapu City) and that the City Council held in abeyance appropriation for the judgment pending this Court’s decision. After deliberation a majority of the En Banc (Chief Justice Makalintal, Justices Castro, Teehankee, Muñoz Palma and Aquino) voted to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds for failure to perfect appeal within the applicable period.
Issues:
- Was the petitioners’ appeal from the Court of First Instance’s judgment timely perfected?
- Did petitioners’ motions for reconsideration interrupt the reglementary period to perfect the appeal — specifically, were the first motions substantive (thus interrupting the period) and were the second motions pro forma (thus not interrupting the period)?
- What is the applicable reglementary period for appealing a mandamus judgment — fifteen days under the old rule or thirty days under the 1964 Rules of Court?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)