Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13517)
Facts:
Conrada Liwanag, Assisted by Her Husband Antonio Tantay, and the Hon. Judge Eulogio Mencias, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal v. Felix Castillo, G.R. No. L-13517, October 20, 1959, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barrera, J., writing for the Court.On May 2, 1956, petitioner Conrada Liwanag, assisted by her husband, filed an action for ejectment against respondent Felix Castillo in the Justice of the Peace Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal. The Justice of the Peace ruled in favor of defendants (Castillo and co-defendants). Dissatisfied, Liwanag appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal; notices of appeal were sent by registered mail by the Clerk of the CFI in accordance with Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent's counsel’s receiving clerk received the registered notice of appeal on April 25, 1957, but allegedly lost it during an absence from the office caused by illness. Respondent failed to file an answer in the CFI within the reglementary period; on May 18, 1957, the CFI entered an order of default and thereafter heard and received petitioner’s evidence. A decision against respondent was rendered on June 7, 1957. Counsel for respondent first learned of the appeal and the decision when he received a copy on June 27, 1957.
Respondent filed, on July 1, 1957, a motion (with an affidavit by the receiving clerk attesting to the loss and illness) to set aside the default and the decision; this motion was denied by the CFI on July 15 for lack of a sufficient affidavit of merit. Petitioner then moved for issuance of a writ of execution. At the hearing on July 27, 1957, the CFI granted respondent an extension until July 30, 1957 to file his answer to the motion for execution and a motion for reconsideration. On July 30 respondent filed a single pleading entitled “Motion for Reconsideration and Answer to Plaintiff’s Motion for Execution” with an affidavit of merit and a note stating the matters were “respectfully submitted without oral argument.”
On August 30, 1957, the CFI refused to consider the July 30 pleading, ruling it did not comply with Section 5, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court (and citing Manakil v. Revilla), and declared the decision final and executory; a writ of execution issued on September 3, 1957. Respondent petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari; the Court of Appeals, in CA G.R. No. 21313-R, granted the writ on January 18, 1958, set aside the orders and decision of the CFI, and directed the judge to allow respondent to file his answer and resume the trial, reasoning that (given the honest mistake/excusable negligence and the issuance of the writ of execution) relief under ordinary rules wou...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals act with grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of certiorari?
- Was certiorari proper to set aside the CFI’s refusal to consider respondent’s July 30 pleading and the subsequent order of execution, given the circumstances (loss of the registered notice by counsel’s clerk, filing of an affidavit of merit, and issuance/pos...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)