G. R. No. 2997. July 27, 1907

On the 13th day of November, 1905, the defendants and appellants presented a petition in this  court asking that the extraordinary writ of mandamus be  issued, directed to the  Hon. Dionisio Chanco,  judge of  the Court  of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte, requiring him to certify a bill of exceptions in this cause.

On the 14th of March, 1900, this court, after hearing  the reasons  given by the said judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte, why he refused to sign and certify said bill of exceptions, issued  the said writ of mandamus, directing the said judge to certify  the said bill of exceptions.   (4 Off. Gaz., 433.)

Later the bill of exceptions was signed and certified, as directed by this court, on the part of the said Judge Chanco on the 16th day of April, 1906.

The facts presented in this cause are as follows:

The plaintiff commenced an action some time in 1904, in the court of the justice of the peace of the pueblo of Dingras, in  the Province of Ilocos Norte.  After hearing  the evidence adduced in said cause, the said justice of the peace rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff and against  the defendants.   From this  decision the defendants duly  appealed to the Court of First  Instance of  the said province, presenting a bond in the sum of P100.   The appeal from the sentence of the justice of the peace was received by the clerk of the Court of  First  instance of said province  on the 27th day of October,  1904.

On the 19th day of July, 1905, the attorney for the plaintiff presented a  motion in the Court of  First Instance of the said province, asking that  said appeal be dismissed for the reason that the defendants had not paid the docket fee in the Court of First  Instance, and also requesting that the cause be returned to the court of the justice of the peace of the pueblo of Dingras for the  execution of the sentence rendered by the said justice of the peace.

On the 21st day of July, 1905, the judge of the Court of First Instance of the said province, after considering said motion, granted the same and ordered that the said appeal be dismissed and  that the cause be returned to the said justice of the peace for execution of the sentence rendered by said justice.

On the 21st day of July,  1905, the clerk of the Court of First Instance of the said province sent by mail a notice of the said order of the court to the defendants.

The record does  not show that the defendants had received any notice whatever of the motion presented by the plaintiff on the said 19th day of July, 1905.

On the 4th day of August, 1905, the defendants received notice of the decision of the court dismissing the  said appeal.

On the 7th day of August, 1905, the defendants presented a motion in the Court of First  Instance of the said province,  asking that the said order of  the 21st day of July, 1905, made by the judge of  the Court of First  Instance of the said province, be set aside, which motion was denied by the said  judge on the 4th day of September, 1905.

To this order the defendants duly excepted, and  gave due notice of their intention to appeal from the said order of the court and to present  a bill of exceptions.

On the 13th day of October, 1905, the judge of the said Court of First Instance, refused the defendants the right of appeal, holding that the  order of the 4th of September was not an  appealable order,  and therefore,  refused to sign the  bill of exceptions presented by the defendants.

The only error assigned by the defendants and appellants is that the lower court erred in dismissing the appeal from the judgment of the justice of the peace  of said  pueblo.

The only question presented to this court by the bill of exceptions is, whether or not the judge  of the court below was justified in dismissing the appeal without  first giving due notice to the parties of  said motion of the defendants and appellants.

Rule 10 of the rules of the Courts of First  Instance of the Philippine Islands, provides:

“When no other provision is made by law, no action shall be taken on any motions or applications unless it appears that the adverse party had notice thereof three  days before the time  set for the hearing thereof.”

In the  present case the record discloses the fact that the motion to dismiss the appeal was made on the 19th of July, 1905, and the order dismissing said appeal under said motion  was  made on the 21st day of July,  1905,  two days after the  presentation of said motion.  It is  clear, therefore, that  the defendants did not have notice of said motion three days before the time set for the hearing thereof.   The defendants did not have notice of the pendency of the motion before it was  passed upon by the court, and therefore had no opportunity to present their defense.  No other provision  of law  has been called to our attention, and it is believed there  is none,  justifying the  lower  court in dismissing the appeal upon  the motion of the plaintiff and appellee, with or without first giving the  defendants due notice. (Reyes vs. Alburo  et al., 5 Off. Gaz., 147.1)

For these reasons the order of the judge of the Court of First Instance of the  Province of Ilocos Norte, of the 21st day of July, 1905, dismissing said appeal and ordering the cause returned to the justice of the  peace of the pueblo of Dingras, is hereby annulled and it is so ordered.

Arellano, C. J,, Torres, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.