TRINIDAD SEMIRA AND ISIDRO G. MERCADO, PETITIONERS, VS. JUAN ENRIQUEZ, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS PROVINCE, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent court to
correct an 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 Batangas
entitled “Trinidad Semira et al., plaintiffs, vs. Jose R. Azores et
al., defendants;” to secure a declaration by this Court that the motion for
correction of 21 June 1948 filed in said case by the petitioners, 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 September 1948 entered by the
respondent court in the case, whereby it declared that the judgment rendered
therein had become final and executory, set aside.

Answering the petition, the judge of the respondent court alleges that the
defendants in the case, in which the judgment sought to be appealed was entered,
are necessary parties and must 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 alleged in the petition are as follows: The petitioners are the
plaintiffs and Jose R. Azores, Sinforoso Azores, Antonio Azores, Norberta
Azores, Bienvenido Azores, Apolonia Azores, Manuel Azores and Juana Azores are
the defendants in civil case No. 43 of the court of first instance of Batangas.
On 7 July 1944, judgment was rendered therein for the defendants. Counsel for
the plaintiffs received a copy of the judgment on 7 August 1944. Twenty-seven
(27) (should be 23) days after receipt of the notice of judgment, and three (3)
(should be 7) days before the last day of the 30-day period within which the
losing party could perfect an appeal, or on 30 August 1944, counsel for the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. On 26 May 1948, after the record
of the case had been reconstituted, the respondent 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 the plaintiffs filed an urgent
ex-parte petition ad cautelam, dated 1 June 1948, for additional 15
days within which to perfect the appeal, should the court deny the motion for
reconsideration. As in the order of 26 May 1948, denying the motion for
reconsideration, a misstatement was made, to wit: that the defendants filed the
motion for reconsideration and the plaintiffs filed an opposition thereto, when
it was just the reverse, on 21 June 1948, or on the same day counsel for the
plaintiffs did not 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 copy of the order dated 25 September
1948, holding that the judgment rendered in the case on 7 July 1944 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 only and not when it is for
the purpose of delay, and that the petition for correction did not stop the
running of the 30-day period within which an appeal could be perfected, because
the misstatement was just a clerical error which could not and did not mislead
the plaintiffs—now petitioners. The respondent court added that if the extension
of time prayed for had been granted, the last day would have been 9 (should be
13) July 1948, and if denied, the last day would have been 24 (should be 28)
June 1948.

That the defendants in the case for whom judgment was rendered and from which
the plaintiffs—now petitioners—attempted to appeal should have been brought in
or joined as respondents, admits of no doubt, They are the parties directly
affected in these proceedings.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in the case in the court below, were entitled 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 in the case final and
executory without first complying with its duty to resolve and decide the
petitions for extension of time to perfect the appeal and for correction of the
aforesaid order of 26 May 1948.

The petitioners 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, after such amendment
shall have been made, let the new respondents answer the petition within five
(5) days from the date of service upon them of the amended petition.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J.:

I hereby certify that Mr. Justice Torres voted in favor of the dispositive
part of this resolution.