A.M. No. P-06-2282 - Regir vs. Regir

The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where Meyer Herman was the defendant and Robert & Guamis were the plaintiffs.
On March 8, 1906, a final judgment was rendered in favor of Meyer Herman.

On March 14, 1906, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that the court’s findings were manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
It is unclear if any order was issued concerning the March 14 motion.
On March 26, 1906, the plaintiffs moved to set aside the decision and requested that the case be reopened to admit the testimony of Dr. Altman, along with other proceedings deemed just and equitable.
Notice was given for the hearing of this motion on March 31, 1906, the last day of the court’s term.

Although the motion was presumably argued on March 31, 1906, the order was not issued until April 14, 1906, after the term had expired.
The court’s order on April 14 authorized the reopening of the case to receive Dr. Altman’s testimony, despite there being no indication that such evidence was newly discovered.

On July 12, 1906, Meyer Herman (the defendant in the lower court) initiated an original action of certiorari in the Supreme Court.
The main contention was that the court below lacked jurisdiction to decide a motion for a new trial after the expiration of its term, rendering the April 14 order void.

The defendants in the certiorari action filed a demurrer in response to the complaint.
The Supreme Court had to resolve the jurisdictional demurrer raised by Meyer Herman regarding the lower court’s competence to entertain and decide the motion post-term.

Whether, after the term at which the judgment was entered had expired, the Court of First Instance possessed jurisdiction to entertain and decide a motion for a new trial.
Whether the order of April 14, 1906, reopening the case, was valid given the expiration of the court’s term.

Whether the decision on the motion for a new trial, made after the term had closed, could be subject to immediate review.
Whether Meyer Herman, as the petitioner, could bypass the established procedural channels to challenge the order immediately.