Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30570)
Facts:
Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Hon. Andres Reyes, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch VI), G.R. No. L-30570. July 29, 1969, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sanchez, J., writing for the Court. In the November 14, 1967 local elections for Mayor of San Juan, Rizal, Braulio Sto. Domingo was proclaimed winner by the municipal board of canvassers; Joseph Ejercito Estrada protested the results and sued in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, where Sto. Domingo filed a counter-protest. On October 29, 1968 the CFI rendered judgment annulling Sto. Domingo’s proclamation and declaring Estrada the duly elected mayor; a copy of the decision was served on Sto. Domingo’s counsel on October 30, 1968.On November 4, 1968 — the last day of the five-day appeal period under Section 178, Revised Election Code — Sto. Domingo filed a motion for reconsideration, served by registered special-delivery mail (registry receipt attached) and set for hearing November 9. Estrada’s counsel had not yet received a copy, so the hearing was reset; the parties litigated service, memoranda and scheduling through November 16, then November 23, and finally November 25, 1968. On November 25 the trial judge promulgated a reasoned resolution holding that reconsideration was not in order because the decision had become final and executory, and denied an oral motion for reconsideration; copies were released in open court that morning.
Between 8:04 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on November 25 Sto. Domingo’s counsel had lodged in the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and obtained ex parte a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the CFI from executing its order. The CA’s summons and TRO were served on the trial judge and on Estrada shortly after the CFI’s promulgation. The Court of Appeals, by a 3–2 vote, later ruled (Feb. 13, 1969) that the CFI acted with grave abuse in not ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing an ex parte temporary restraining order based on information allegedly obtained in advance of the trial court’s promulgation?
- Did the trial court resolve Sto. Domingo’s motion for reconsideration on the merits or unlawfully neglect its duty?
- Did Sto. Domingo’s motion for reconsideration suspend the five‑day period for appeal under Section 178 of the Revised Election Code?
- Were extraordinary writs (mandamus, certiorari, prohibition) or treating the CA special action as an appeal appropriate...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)