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

Sy It versus Tiangco

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Sy It, together with his co-defendant Ang Yee King, against Arsenio Tiangco and Bela Singh Pabla, the plaintiffs in an ejectment suit before the Municipal Court of the City of Manila. The defendants sought to annul the municipal court's order denying their motion to dismiss the complaints. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to teach two procedural lessons every litigator must know: when a judgment becomes final and executory, and when a petition for certiorari may be entertained without first asking the trial court to reconsider its ruling.

Procedural History

Arsenio Tiangco and Bela Singh Pabla filed two complaints for ejectment before the Municipal Court of the City of Manila, one against Ang Yee King and one against Sy It. The two cases were apparently joined. Instead of answering, the defendants moved to dismiss on two grounds: that the causes of action were barred by a prior judgment, and that the complaints stated no cause of action. The municipal court denied the motion and set the case for hearing.

Without filing a motion for reconsideration, the defendants filed a single joint petition for certiorari before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The respondents answered and moved for summary judgment. The Court of First Instance rendered a decision dismissing the petition and dissolving the writ of injunction. A copy of that decision was served on Attorney Enrico I. de la Cruz, one of the petitioners' counsel, on February 17, 1959. Twenty-three days later, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. Motions for reconsideration of the denial were filed very late, and the trial court eventually declared the decision final and executory as to Ang Yee King but not as to Sy It, because there was no proof that his counsel, Attorney Jordan Techico, had been served with a copy of the decision. Sy It later filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of February 11, 1959, which was denied. He then filed his notice of appeal and appeal bond, and the case reached the Supreme Court on purely questions of law.

Facts

On March 27, 1958, Arsenio Tiangco and Bela Singh Pabla filed a complaint for ejectment against Ang Yee King before the Municipal Court of the City of Manila, alleging that the monthly contract of lease between them had already terminated. On the same date, the same plaintiffs filed a similar action against Sy It on the same cause of action. The two cases were apparently joined.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the municipal court denied. Instead of seeking reconsideration, the defendants filed a joint petition for certiorari before the Court of First Instance of Manila. That court dismissed the petition and dissolved the writ of injunction. Copy of the decision was served on Attorney Enrico I. de la Cruz on February 17, 1959. The motion for reconsideration was filed only on March 12, 1959, twenty-three days after receipt.

The trial court later set aside its denial of the motion for reconsideration, but on the respondents' motion it reconsidered and declared the decision final and executory as to Ang Yee King. As to Sy It, the court held the decision was not yet final because there was no proof of service on his counsel, Attorney Jordan Techico. Sy It's motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied, and he appealed to the Supreme Court on questions of law.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal may be given due course when the decision of the trial court had already become final and executory at the time the appeal was perfected.
• Whether or not service of the decision on one of two counsel who jointly filed the petition for certiorari counts as service on both petitioners.
• Whether or not a petition for certiorari may be filed without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the trial court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 17 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 17. When appeal deemed perfected; effect thereof. — If the appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal, the appeal shall be deemed perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal with the trial court within the period herein prescribed, and the trial court shall lose jurisdiction over the case.

This provision fixes the period within which an appeal must be perfected, and the Court uses it to show that the decision had already become final when the motion for reconsideration was filed twenty-three days after notice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal must be dismissed because the decision of the trial court had already become final and executory when the appeal was perfected, and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court to give course to the appeal. The motion for reconsideration was filed twenty-three days after receipt of the decision, beyond the fifteen-day period, so the decision had already become final when that motion was filed.

On the second issue, the Court held that service on Attorney Enrico I. de la Cruz was service on both petitioners. The petition for certiorari was jointly filed by both petitioners, who were jointly represented by their counsel, so service upon one counsel may be deemed service upon the other. The Court also noted that the motion for reconsideration was signed by Attorney de la Cruz in his own behalf and in behalf of his co-counsel, Attorney Jordan Techico, and that Attorney Techico himself confirmed during the hearing that both attorneys represented both petitioners jointly.

On the third issue, the Court held that the appeal was untenable because when the municipal court denied the motion to dismiss, the appellant did not file a motion for reconsideration but immediately filed a petition for certiorari. This 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 through a motion for reconsideration. The Court held that this ground alone was enough basis for dismissing the appeal.

Doctrine

A judgment becomes final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal or move for reconsideration, and once final, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court to alter or give course to an appeal. Service of a decision on one of two counsel who jointly filed a petition and jointly represented the petitioners is service on both. Before an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari, he must first file a motion for reconsideration with the trial court to give it an opportunity to correct the error it may have committed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, with costs against the appellant Sy It.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a petition for certiorari filed without a prior motion for reconsideration is premature and must be dismissed. Examiners like to use this case to test the requisites of certiorari and the rule on finality of judgments.