Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1523)
Background
- This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Binan Transportation Company, Inc. (Petitioner) against Fidel Ibanez and others (Respondents).
- The petition asserts that the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion when issuing an order for execution of a judgment dated June 28, 1947, based on a prior decision rendered on March 22, 1943.
Jurisdiction and Notification
- The Petitioner claims that they were not notified of the hearing or the judgment rendered against them, making the judgment null and void.
- The Respondents contest this assertion, stating that the Petitioner was constructively notified through the reconstitution of pleadings due to lost records from the war.
Reconstitution of Records
- The Court of First Instance of Laguna ordered the reconstitution of pleadings and the decision on December 20, 1946, following a motion from the Respondents.
- The Petitioner became aware of the decision only after the reconstitution and subsequently filed motions for a new trial and relief under Rules 37 and 38.
Court's Decisions on Motions
- The respondent judge denied the motions on the grounds that they were filed beyond the legally prescribed timeframe.
- The judge's order granting the writ of execution noted that the Petitioner’s counsel was constructively served with the decision on December 20, 1946.
Legal Principles of Constructive Service
- The legal presumption is that "official duty has been regularly performed" and the law has been obeyed, implying that notification was valid unless proven otherwise at a hearing.
- The Court determined that the Petitioner was constructively served with notice of the decision during the reconstitution process.
Appeal and Certiorari
- The Court concluded that since the denial of the motions was within the judge's jurisdiction, the proper remedy for any alleged error would be an appeal, not a certiorari.
- Certiorari is inappropriate as it does not lie when there is a right to appeal and the court has jurisdiction over the matter.
Dissenting Opinion
- Justice Perfecto dissents, arguing that the lack of notice deprived the trial court of jurisdiction, rendering the decision null and void ab initio.
- The dissent emphasizes that notice of reconstitution do
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-1523)
Case Overview
- This case is a petition for certiorari filed by Binan Transportation Company, Inc., the petitioner, against Fidel Ibanez and others, the respondents.
- The central issue revolves around the alleged lack of jurisdiction by the respondent judge in issuing an order of execution dated June 28, 1947, based on a judgment rendered on March 22, 1943, which the petitioner claims is null and void due to not being notified of the proceedings.
Factual Background
- The petitioner was sued in the Court of First Instance of Laguna for damages amounting to P4,900 on May 30, 1940, with the answer filed on June 3, 1940.
- The hearing set for January 5, 1942, was disrupted due to the Japanese invasion, and the actual hearing occurred on February 2, 1943, without notice to the petitioner.
- A decision was rendered on March 22, 1943, but the petitioner did not receive any notification regarding the trial or the decision.
- On November 26, 1946, a petition for the reconstitution of the case records was filed, which was granted, and the records were reconstituted on December 20, 1946.