SY IT, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. ARSENIO TIANGCO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

On March 27, 1958, Arsenio Tiangco and Bela Singh Pabla filed a
complaint against Ang Yee King before the Municipal Court of the City
of Manila seeking to eject the latter from the property he is occupying
on the ground that the monthly contract of lease entered into between
them has already terminated. On the same date, the same plaintiffs
filed a similar action before the same court against Sy It based on the
same cause of action. Apparently, the two cases were joined, and
instead of filing their answer, the two defendants filed a motion to
dismiss based on two grounds (1) that the causes of actions on which
the complaints are based are barred by a prior judgment, and (2) the
complaints state no cause of action. The plaintiffs opposed the motion
to dismiss, and after defendants filed their rejoinder, the court
entered an order on July 11, 1958 denying the motion and setting the
case for hearing on August 12, 1958.

Without filing any motion for reconsideration, the defendants in the
two cases filed a single petition for certiorari thru their respective
counsel Enrico I. de la Cruz and Jordan Techico before the Court of
First Instance of Manila making plaintiffs respondents therein. In due
time, these respondents answered the petition, and believing that the
petition can be decided on the pleadings, or without the need of
presenting evidence, respondents filed a petition for summary judgment.
No opposition having been interposed thereto, the court on February 11,
1959 rendered decision dismissing the petition and dissolving the writ,
of injunction issued against respondents.

Copy of the decision was served upon counsel Enrico I. de la Cruz on
February 17, 1959, and on March 12, 1959, or after the lapse of 23 days
from receipt of the decision, petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration. This motion was denied on April 24, 1959. Copy of this
order was received by counsel Enrico I. de la Cruz on April 30, 1959
and another copy was received by counsel Jordan Techico on May 5, 1959.
Counsel for petitioners in the two cases filed a motion for
reconsideration of said order of April 24, 1959, to wit: Atty, Enrico
I. de la Cruz on July 29, 1959, that is after the lapse of 90 days from
the date he received copy of said order, and Atty. Jordan Techico after
the lapse of 84 days from the day he received copy of the same order,
and notwithstanding the objection set up by respondents to the effect
that the decision of the court rendered on February 11, 1959, as1 well
as its order of April 24, 1959, have already become final and
executory, the court issued an order on August 1, 1959 setting aside
the order of April 24, 1959 which denies petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the
order of August 1,1959 in the sense that the decision of February 11,
1959 as well as the order of April 24, 1959 be declared final and
executory at least insofar as petitioner Ang Yee King is concerned. And
the court on October 5, 1959 reconsidered its order and declared said
decision and order final and executory insofar as Ang Yee is concerned.
But with regard to petitioner Sy It the court held that the decision of
February 11, 1959 is not yet final and executory insofar as he is
concerned and decreed that copy of said decision be served upon his
counsel Jordan Techico for the reason^that there is no proof that he
had been served with a copy thereof. Respondents moved to reconsider
this order alleging lack of jurisdiction to issue it on the part of the
trial court, but the same was denied.

In the meantime, counsel for petitioner Sy It filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the trial court dated February 11,
1959, which was denied on March 25, 1961. On April 27, 1961, petitioner
Sy It filed his notice of appeal and appeal bond and the case is now
before us on purely questions of law.

This appeal must be dismissed on the simple ground that when the
same was perfected the decision on the merits rendered by the trial
court on February 11, 1959 has already become final and executory and,
therefore, it was beyond the jurisdiction of said court to give course
to the appeal.

It appears that when said decision was rendered on February 11,
1959, copy thereof was furnished to Atty. Enrico I. de la Cruz who was
one of the attorneys who filed the joint petition for certiorari before
the trial court, and the motion for reconsideration of the decision was
only filed by petitioners on March 12, 1959, or after the lapse of 23
days from the date said decision was received by their counsel. It is
true that copy of the decision was served only upon Atty. Enrico I. de
la Cruz, while in the municipal court the counsel who appeared for
appellant Sy It was Atty. Jordan Techico. We believe, however, that
this circumstance is of no moment considering that the petition for
certiorari was jointly filed by both petitioners who were represented
jointly by their counsel De la Cruz and Techico. In other words, it may
be said that in filing said joint petition petitioners were represented
by both counsel so that service upon one may be deemed to be service
upon the other.

Moreover, when the motion for reconsideration was filed by
petitioners on March 12, 1959, the motion was filed by Atty. Enrico I.
de la Cruz who acted not only in his own behalf but in behalf of his
co-counsel Jordan Techico. Thus, at the end of said motion the
following representation appears:

	“Jordan Techico
	201-202 Ban Chuan Bldg.
In collaboration with:
	Enrico I. de la Cruz
	604 Trade & Commerce BIdg.
	Juan Luna, Manila
			(Sgd.)
				By: Enrico I. de la Cruz
				Attorneys for Petitioners”

And
to dispel any doubt as regards the fact that Atty. Techico authorized
his co-counsel De la Cruz to act in his behalf in connection with the
petition for certiorari, we wish to quote hereunder the statements made
by the attorneys of both parties during the hearing on the motion for
reconsideration:

“Atty. Alvarez:
	Before we proceed, may I be enlightened as to show whose motion for reconsideration this is: whether it is for Sy It or Ang Yee King’s motion for reconsideration, because I noted that Atty. Techico who is here has not signed the motion.
Atty. Techico:
	I have not signed it because when we submitted this motion it was with the understanding that at was joint, as a matter of fact, the two petitioners are embodied in one motion. Atty. de la Cruz is representing Ang Yee King while I am representing Sy It, and this motion for reconsideration is signed by Atty. de la Cruz.
Atty. Alvarez:
	So it is clear and we can make it appear of record that both attorneys represent jointly Ang Yee King and Sy It?
Atty. Techico:
	Practically.
Atty. Alvarez:
	I would like to have a definite answer, not practically.
Atty. Techico:
	Yes.”

Since the instant case is one that involves a petition for
certiorari on the ground that the court of origin has acted with grave
abuse of discretion where our rule requires that the appeal be
perfected within 15 days from notice of the decision and here the
motion for reconsideration was filed 23 days from receipt of notice, it
is clear that the decision of the trial court has already become final
and executory when said motion for reconsideration was filed (Section
17, Rule 41, Rules of Court).

Another factor that makes this appeal untenable is the fact that
when said motion for reconsideration was acted upon by the trial court
and, notwithstanding that it was filed beyond the reglementary period
it was simply denied and not declared out of time, the court made the
following comment:

“* * * The motion for reconsideration filed in this
case by respondents shows that Atty. Enrico I. de la Cruz signed in his
own behalf and that of Atty. Jordan Techico and was intended to be a
motion for reconsideration on behalf of both petitioners. It is
undeniable therefore that the service of the decision upon Atty. Enrico
I. de la Cruz on February 17, 1959 was a service upon the petitioners.”

Copy of the above order was received by counsel for appellant on May
5, 1959 and he filed the motion for reconsideration only on July 29,
1959, or after the lapse of 84 days from receipt of said order. Said
order, therefore, already become final and executory and as such,
binding upon appellant.

Finally, it should not be overlooked that when the Municipal Court
of the City of Manila denied the motion to dismiss the original case on
the ground that the same was without merit, appellant did not file a
motion for reconsideration, but immediately filed a petition for
certiorari. jointly with his co-defendant Ang Yee King. This flaw
cannot lightly be brushed aside, for it goes against the established
rule that before an aggrieved party can file a petition for certiorari
he must first give the trial court an opportunity to correct the error
it may have committed thru a motion for reconsideration.^[1] This ground alone is enough basis for the dismissal of the present appeal.

Wherefore, the instant appeal is dismissed, with costs against appellant.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Herrera vs. Barreto & Joaquin, 25 Phil., 245; Uy Chu vs. Imperial & Uy Du, 44 Phil., 27; Amante vs. Sison, 60 Phil., 949, 951-953; Bongon Vda. de Manzanares vs. Court of First Instance of Batangas, 61 Phil., 850; Manila Post Publishing Co. vs. Judge Sanchez, 81 Phil., 614; 46 Off. Gaz., Supp, 1, 412; Alvarez vs. Ibañez, 83 Phil., 104; Nicolas vs. Castillo, 97 Phil., 336; Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Reyes, 100 Phil., 822; Rieafort vs. Judge Fernan 101 Phil., 54 Off. Gaz., 2534; People vs. Palacio, et al., 108 Phil., 220; 575;