Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38837)
Facts:
In the case of Jose S. Dineros in his Capacity as Receiver of La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc., and Ricardo Gurrea v. Marciano C. Roque, et al., a petition for mandamus was filed by the petitioners, specifically Jose S. Dineros and Ricardo Gurrea, against several respondents including Judge Carlos Y. Gonzales and City Sheriffs. The events leading up to the case began on December 2, 1959, when the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII, issued a default judgment in Civil Case No. 39827. The judgment mandated La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc. to pay Marciano C. Roque the amount of P150,000.00, along with interest and attorney’s fees.Subsequently, on July 18, 1960, the petitioners filed an action to annul this default judgment in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, which was designated as Civil Case No. 5509 and was presided over by respondent Judge Gonzales. After due trial, the court rendered a decision on March 7, 1974, dismissing the complaint
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38837)
Facts:
- On December 2, 1959, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII rendered a default judgment in Civil Case No. 39827, ordering the La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc. to pay Marciano C. Roque P150,000.00 with interest and attorney’s fees.
- On July 18, 1960, petitioners Jose S. Dineros (as receiver) and Ricardo Gurrea filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch VI (Civil Case No. 5509) to annul the default judgment.
- After a full trial, the respondent Judge rendered a decision on March 7, 1974, dismissing the complaint. Petitioners received a copy of this decision on March 13, 1974.
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on April 4, 1974. This motion, however, was denied on April 22, 1974, on the ground that it was pro forma.
- Private respondents opposed the motion for reconsideration and argued that its mere filing did not suspend the running of the appeal period, noting that the decision had already become final on April 14, 1974.
- Petitioners then filed their notice of appeal and deposited a cash appeal bond on April 24, 1974, and subsequently tendered the record on appeal on May 3, 1974, which was beyond the reglementary period.
- On May 21, 1974, the respondent Judge ordered the dismissal of the record on appeal, entered judgment accordingly, and issued a writ of execution.
- Petitioners subsequently sought a writ of mandamus from this higher court to compel the lower court to certify and approve their record on appeal.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, filed on April 4, 1974, was a proper motion that could toll the running of the appeal period, or was merely pro forma.
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the record on appeal due to the untimely filing, notwithstanding the motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)