G.R. No. L-18940 - Shioji vs. Harvey

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18940)

Factual Background

In cause No. 19471 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Judge Concepcion, judgment was entered on October 31, 1920 in favor of S. Shioji and against the defendants, jointly and severally, for P19,533.49 with legal interest and costs. The defendants perfected an appeal by bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court, which docketed the matter as R. G. No. 18592. The bill of exceptions was filed in the clerk's office of the Supreme Court on February 16, 1922 and counsel received copies on February 17, 1922. Under Rule 21 the appellants had thirty days from receipt of the printed bill within which to serve and file their brief. No brief was served or filed and no timely motion for extension was presented before March 19, 1922.

Procedural Actions in the Supreme Court and Return of the Mandate

On March 22, 1922 appellants filed a motion for additional time to file their brief. The Supreme Court, on March 24, denied that motion as untimely and, pursuant to Rule 24(a), dismissed the appeal. Motions for reconsideration were denied and the court noted counsel's exception. After the customary fifteen-day period for issuance of judgment and for return of the record expired, the record was transmitted to the Court of First Instance on April 12, 1922 and execution issued to enforce the judgment.

Injunction in the Court of First Instance

Before levy under the execution, the defendants filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, docket No. 21905, alleging that the judgment of the Supreme Court was unconscionable, was rendered without due process, and that Rule 24(a) under which the Supreme Court acted was unconstitutional and void. They prayed for a preliminary injunction against any levy and for the injunction to be made perpetual. After administrative transfer procedures, Judge Harvey issued the preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Supreme Court judgment.

Petition for Prohibition and Immediate Relief by the Supreme Court

Counsel for the successful judgment-creditor filed an original petition in the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to compel Judge Harvey to desist from interfering with execution of the judgment in cause No. 19471 and to revoke the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction in aid of the petition, which respondents complied with. Petitioner moved for judgment on the pleadings and the matter was argued after full hearing.

Petitioner's Principal Contention

Petitioner contended that a judge of a Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to interpret, review, or obstruct a judgment of the Supreme Court when that judgment and mandate had been returned for execution. Petitioner maintained that the sole function of the inferior court at that stage is ministerial execution of the superior court's decree and that any attempt by the lower court to vary, review, or relitigate the appellate disposition frustrates appellate authority and produces juridical chaos.

Respondents' Principal Contention

Respondents principally assailed the validity of Rule 24(a) as unconstitutional and void, and argued that the dismissal of their appeal deprived them of due process. They relied upon provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, invoking sections cited in the petition as entitling them to relief or review, and sought to sustain the injunction issued by Judge Harvey as a legitimate collateral attack upon the Supreme Court resolution.

Legal Issue(s) Presented

The Supreme Court identified two principal issues: first, whether the Court of First Instance could lawfully interfere with, review, or obstruct execution of the Supreme Court's judgment returned to it; and second, whether Rule 24(a) of the Supreme Court Rules conflicted with the laws of the United States or of the Philippine Islands and was therefore invalid.

Ruling on the Power of the Lower Court

The Court held that a lower court has no supervisory power to interpret, rehear, or reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court when the appellate court's decision and mandate are returned for execution. The Court reaffirmed the long-standing rule that the inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case and must carry it into execution according to the mandate; it cannot vary the decree or review matters decided on appeal. The Court cited precedent from the United States, including Sibbald v. United States and Ex parte Dubuque & Pacific Railroad, to support the proposition that the district court cannot set aside a Supreme Court judgment after the return of mandate. On that ground the writ of prohibition was proper and the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Harvey was ordered revoked.

Ruling on the Validity of Rule 24(a)

The Court next examined the statutory authority under Section 28, Judiciary Act (No. 136) and section 6, Code of Civil Procedure for the Supreme Court to promulgate rules binding upon the Courts of First Instance. The Court construed the enabling statutes as encompassing rules governing the preparation and filing of briefs and as authorizing rules which expedite judicial business, provided they are not repugnant to the laws of the United States or of the Philippine Islands. The Court discussed Rules 21, 22, and 23 as prescribing mandatory periods and responsibilities, and treated Rule 24(a) — permitting the court to dismiss an appeal when the appellant fails to file his brief — as a discretionary rule analogous to provisions in other jurisdictions.

Reasoning on Necessity and Nonconflict

The Court reasoned that rules prescribing time

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-18940)

Parties and Posture

S. Shioji was plaintiff in cause No. 19471 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and obtained judgment against Toyo Kisen Kaisha and Pacific Mail Steamship Co. for P19,533.49 with interest and costs.
The defendants perfected an appeal by bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, docketed as R. G. No. 18592.
The printed bill of exceptions was filed in the Supreme Court clerk's office on February 16, 1922, and copies were received by counsel on February 17, 1922.
Pursuant to Rule 21, the appellants had thirty days from receipt to serve and file their brief, and that period expired on March 19, 1922, without the filing of a brief or timely motion for extension.
On March 22, 1922, appellants filed a motion for additional time which the Supreme Court denied on March 24, 1922, and the appeal was dismissed under Rule 24 (a).
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal upon motions for reconsideration and directed the return of the record to the lower court, and the record was transmitted to the Court of First Instance on April 12, 1922.
Prior to levy, the defendants filed an action in the Court of First Instance, docket No. 21905, seeking a preliminary injunction alleging the Supreme Court judgment was unconscionable, rendered without due process, and that Rule 24 (a) was unconstitutional, and Judge Harvey granted a preliminary injunction enjoining execution.
The plaintiff in the original action instituted an original proceeding in the Supreme Court in prohibition to compel Honorable Geo. R. Harvey, Judge of First Instance of Manila, to desist from interfering with the enforcement of the Supreme Court judgment and to revoke the preliminary injunction.

Key Facts

The trial court judgment in favor of S. Shioji was rendered on October 31, 1920, by Judge Concepcion presiding in the second branch.
The appellants failed to serve and file their brief within the thirty-day period prescribed by Rule 21 and failed to present a timely motion for extension as required by Rule 23.
The Supreme Court's practice provided routine, sequential extensions for briefs if motions were filed before the expiration of the prescribed period.
The injunction proceedings in the Court of First Instance were predicated chiefly on an attack upon the Supreme Court's dismissal and on the alleged unconstitutionality of Rule 24 (a).
Upon the filing of the petition in prohibition, the Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction commanding Judge Harvey to desist from further interference, and the respondents complied.

Statutory Framework

Section 28 of the Judiciary Act (No. 136) empowered the Supreme Court to "make all necessary rules for orderly procedure in the Supreme Court * * * in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which rules shall be * * * binding upon the several courts."
Section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure required the judges of the Supreme Court to prepare rules regulating the conduct of business in the Supreme Court and Courts of First Instance and provided that such rules, when duly made and promulgated and not in conflict with the laws of the United States or of the Philippine Islands, shall be binding.
Rule 21 mandated that an appellant shall serve and file his brief within thirty days from receipt of the printed bill of exceptions.
Rule 23 required that motions for extension of time to file briefs must be presented before the expiration of the prescribed period and allowed extensions only on notice and for good cause or by stipulation of counsel.
Rule 24 (a) provided that "