Trinidad Semira and Isidro G. mercado, petitioners vs. Juan Enriquez, respondents, G.R. No. L2582, march 23, 1950

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Trinidad Semira and Isidro G. mercado, petitioners vs. Juan Enriquez, respondents, G.R. No. L2582, march 23, 1950
extracted text: XIV Trinidad Sem.im and ISfflOf"o G. Mercado, Petitione,-., 1,•s. Juan. Enri quez, Respa,tdents, G. R. No. L..2582, March 23, 1950. JUDGMENTS; PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF JUDG MENT AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL; DUTY OF COURT TO DECIDE. - In case a party to a case tiles a petition for correction of the judgment rendered and for an extension of time to perfect an appeal, he is entitled to expect action thereon by the court. The latter is in duty bound to decide and resolve the two petitions and it is unfair for it to declare the judgment rendered in the ease final and executory· without first complying with its duty lo act on the petitions for extension of time to perfect the appeal and for correction of judgmenL Certiorari granted. Potnciano A. Magtibay for petitioner. R� Judge in his own behalf. A'fttofti L . Az:oru for respondents A::ores. R E S O LUT I O N PADILLA, J.: This is a petition for a writ of m.andamu.s to compel the � pondent court to correct Ml erroneous statement made in its order of 26 May 1948, entered in civil case No. 43 of the court of first instance of the province of Batnngas entitled "Trinidad Semira et al, plaintiffs, v. Jose R. Azores et al., defendants;" to secure de claration by this Court that the motion for correcticn of 21 June 1948 filed in said case by the !)etitioners, the plaintiffs in the court below, suspended the running of the 30-day period within , which an appeal could be taken; and to have the order of 25 Sept.. ember 1948 entered by the respondent court in the case, whereby it declared that the judgment rendered therein bad become final an e:a:ecutory, set.aside. Answering the petition, the judge of the respondent court al leges that the defendants in the case. in which the judgment sought to be appealed w&S entered, are necessary parties and must. running of the 30--d&y period within which an appeal could be p('rfected, because the misstatement was- just a cleridtl error which could not and did not mislead the plaintiffs -- now petitioners. The tupondent court added that if the atension of tune prayed for had been granted, the last day would have been 9 fshou.1d be-13> July 1948, a.nd if denied, the last day would have be<!n 24 (should be 28) June i948. That the defendants in the case for wli.om judgment was ren dered and from which the plaintiffs -now petitioners--- attempteJ to appeal should have been brought in or joined as respondent.s, admits of no doubt. They are ihe parties directly affected in these proceedings. The petjtioners, plaintiffs in ·the case in the court below, were {:nt.itled to expect action by the respondent court on their petitions for extension of time to perfect the appeal and for correction of the order of 26 May 1948. The respondent court was in duty bound to decide and resolve the two petitions and it is unfair for it to declare the judgment rendered to the case final and executory without first complying with its duty to resolve and decide the petitions for ex tt'nsion of time to perfect the appeal and for correction of the afore said order of 26 May 1948. The petithners are directed to amend their petition to include or implead as respondents the defendants in the case in the court below, within five (5) days from notice or receipt of a copy of this resolution; and, afier such amendment shall have mll<le, let the new respondents answer the petition within five (5) days from date of service upon them of the amended petition. Moran, Ozaeta, Pablo, Bntg:,;on, Tu.aso11, Montemayor and Regn. J.J. concur Ton-es voted in favor of the dispositive part of this resolution. be joined; and, after setting forth the proceedings in the court below pertinent to the question raised by the petitioners, prays that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit. The facts all�ed in the petition are as follows: The pet-i tioners are the plaintiffs and Jose R. Azores, Sinforoso �res, Antonio Azores, Norberta Azores, Bienvenido A:r;ores, Apolonio Azores, Manuel Azores and Juana Azores are the defendants in civil case No. 43 of the court of first instance of Bata.ngas. On 7 July 1944, judgment was rendered therein for the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiffs received a copy of the judgment on 7 2. August 194.4. Twenty-Seven (27> (should be 23) days after receipt of the notice of judgment, and three <3) '<should De 7) days before the last day of the 30-day period within which the losing party could perfect an appeal, or on 30 August 194-4, counsel for the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsider&tion. On 26 May 1948, after the record of the case had been reconstituted, the resj)Ondent court denied the motion for reconsideration. On 21 June, counsel for the plaintiffs received a copy of the order denying the motion for reconsideration. But prior to the receipt of a copy of the last order, on 5 June 1948 counsel for t-he plaintiffs filed an urgent ex-parte petition ad cautelam. dated 1 June 1948, for additional 16 tlays within which to perfect the appeal, should the court deny the motion for reconsideration. As in the order of 26 May of 1948, denying the motion for reconsideration, a misstatement was made, tv wit: that the defendants filed the motion for reconsideration and the plaintiffs filed an opposition thereto, when it was just thf' reverse, on 21 June 1948, or on the same day counsel for the plaintiffs received a copy of the last mentioned order, counsel filed a petition for correction and set it for hearing" on 3 July following. As counsel for the plaintiffs did not receive notice of any action taken by the court on the two petitions for extension of time and for correction, he addressed a letter to the clerk of the court of first instance of Batangas inquiring as to what action, if any, had been taken on the petition for correction. On 2 October 1948, counsel for the plaintiffs received a oopy of the order dated 25 September 1948, holding that the judgment rendered in the case on 7 July 19« had become final and executory, because the motion for extension of time, in the opinion of the court below, could be granted for good reasons onJy and not when it is (or the purpose of d:elay, and that the petition for correction did not stop the Andres M. Hagad for appellant. ftfeneses and Dimayuga for appellees. 142 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL March 31, 1954
Date: 1954
Rights