APOLINARIO DACANAY, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JAVIER PABALAN, ETC. ET. AL., RESPONDENTS

This is an original action for
“certiorari and/or prohibition with preliminary injunction,” to
restrain—first preliminarily; and, thereafter, perpetually—respondent,
Hon. Javier Pabalan, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan, from further proceedings in Civil case No. 708 of said
Court and to declare that the decision of the Justice of the Peace
Court of Umingan, Pangasinan, dated December 6, 1960, in Civil Case No.
278 of said Court, entitled “Apolinario Dacanay and Pacencia Lopez vs. Alfredo Flora, Ernesto Flora, Fausto Flora and Eduardo Ancheta,” is already final and executory.

It appears that on March 3, 1960, petitioners Apolinario Dacanay and
Paciencia Lopez, who are husband and wife, instituted said Civil Case
No. 278 of the Justice, of the Peace Court of Umingan, Pangasinan, for
forcible entry and detainer, against the main respondents herein,
Alfredo Flora, Ernesto Flora, Fausto Flora and Eduardo Ancheta. On
March 14, 1960, those respondents herein filed their answer as
defendants in laid case. On May 9, 1960, petitioners amended their
complaint therein. When said case, was called for trial on the merits,
on October 15, 1960, petitioners presented their evidence. Thereupon
respondents’ counsel moved orally to dismiss the case, upon the ground
that petitioners had failed to establish their cause of action, Said
motion for dismissal was formally filed on October 17, 1960. On motion
of petitioners herein, dated November 9, 1960, and after due hearing,
said court denied the motion for dismissal and declared the case
submitted for decision. On December 6, 1960, the court rendered a
decision sentencing the respondents to vacate the property in question
and to pay to petitioners P150.00 a month, from February to April,
1960, inclusive, and P120.00 a month thereafter, until the property is
finally restored to petitioners, with costs against said respondents.

Copy of this decision having been served upon the latter on December 9,
1960, they filed a motion for reconsideration the next day. This motion
was denied on December 24, 1960. On the same date, petitioners moved
for the execution of said decision, upon the ground that the same was
already final and executory, because respondents’ aforementioned motion
for reconsideration was allegedly pro forma,
and, as such, did not stay the running of the period to interpose an
appeal, which, in the meanwhile, had elapsed. On December 27, 1960,
said motion of petitioners herein was granted and the corresponding
writ of execution issued. It would seem that on December 29, 1960
petitioners were placed in possession of the property in dispute,
although there is an allegation to the effect that, subsequently
respondent’s herein recovered said possession.

Meanwhile, or on January 3, 1961, respondents had filed with the Court
of First Instance of Pangasinan a petition “for certiorari/mandamus
with preliminary injunction,” docketed as Civil Case No. T-708 of said
Court, which was assigned to its Tayug Branch, presided over by
respondent Judge, Hon. Javier Pabalan. The defendants in that case were
the Justice of the Peace of Umingan, the Deputy Sheriff, who executed
the aforementioned writ of execution, a PC Corporal, who allegedly
assisted said deputy sherilf in the enforcement of said writ of
execution, and petitioners herein. After setting forth, substantially,
the facts abovementioned, respondents alleged in their abovementioned
petition that the aforesaid decision, orders or processes issued by the
Justice of the Peace of Umingan in said civil ease No. 278 were
illegally rendered or issued “with grave abuse of his power, in excess
or without jurisdiction to do so,” and that respondents herein, as
petitioners therein, did net “have “any ‘other More adeqtisfe remedy in
the ordinary course of law,” and prayed, inter alia,
that a’writ of preliminary injunction be immediately issued; that the
decision, dated December 6, 1960, as well as the orders dated December
24, and 27,1960, be declared null and void, the same having been
“issued’ with grave abuse of discretion, in excess of or without
jurisdiction and being unjust, in violation of tha Rules of Court and
the law, null, void, and without any effect whatsoever;” that the
record of said Civil Case No. 278 be forwarded to the aforementioned
court of first instance “for review on appeal,” and that the defendants
in said case be sentenced, to pay the costs, plus damages in the
aggregate sum of P2,500.00.

On January 16, 1961, petitioners herein filed an answer with a motion
to dismiss said case the propriety of the writ of certiorari prayed for
by the petitioners therein and respondents herein. After hearing both
parties, respondent Judge issued, on January 24, 1961, an order from
which we quote:

“It Is to bo noted that this certiorari proceedings
was filed before the judgment of the Justice of the Peaee Court became
final, and tha among the reliefs prayed for is:

(b)
Declaring that the decision dated December 6, 1960 issued by respondent
JP designated in said Civil Case No. 278S the order denying the motion
for reconsideration dated December 24, 1960 as well as the order
therein dated. December 27, 1960 declaring his illegal decision final
and executory all null and void being issued with grave abuse of
discretion, in excess of or without jurisdiction, and being unjust, in
violation of the Rules of Court and the law, null, void* and without
any effect whatsoever; and/or ordering thereafter that the expediente
of the said civil case No. 278 in the interest of justice be remanded
to this Court for review on appeal by the petitioners.’

Considering these circumstances, and although the Court believes
that the proper remedy for petitioners should have been an ordinary
appeal, and not thru certiorari proceedings; considering that
petitioners had now lost their right to file an appeal, and in
consonance with the avowed policy to allow review; the Court hereby
allows and admits this certiorari proceedings which shall be treated,
for all purposes, as an appeal against the decision rendered by the
Justice of the Peace Court of Umingan, Pangasinan, in Civil Case No,
278. The Justice of the Peace of Umingan, Pangasinan, shall remand the
records of Civil Case No. 278 to this Court for trial de novo and
review. The parties may file any other pleading that they may, wish in
order to give effect to this order.” (Record, p. 19.)

On January 27, 1961, petitioners herein moved for a reconsideration
of this order, which was denied on February 27, 1961. Hence, the
present petition, filed on March 29, 1961, with the prayer:

1. That a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
   ordering the Respondent Judge to desist from further proceedings in
   Civil Case No. 708 until further orders from this Honorable Court;

2. That resolution issue finding the Motion of Reconsideration (Annex “A” pro forma
   and, therefore, did not suspend or interrupt the 15-day period within
   which to perfect an appeal, thereby making the decision oú the Umingan
   JP Court of December 6, 1960 final and executory in view of the failure
   of the Respondents to appeal; and

3. Ordering the respondents to permanently desist from further proceedings.

Petitioners pray that such other Orders issue as may be just and lawful in the premises.” (Record, p. 6.)

Upon the filing of a P200.00 bond by petitioners herein, we issued
on May 4, 1961, the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for.

The main issue in this case is whether or not respondent Judge has
exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering that the petition for certiorari
and mandamus in said Civil Case No. 708 of the Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan “be treated, for all purposes, as an appeal against the
decision rendered by the Justice of the Peace of Umingan, Pangasinan,
in Civil Case No. 278” thereof The answer must be in the affirmative.

Regardless of whether or not said petition was filed before said
decision of the justice of the peace court had become final, the
petition in said case No. 708 of the court of first instance cannot be
treated as an appeal. Pursuant to section 2 of Rule 40 of the Rules of
Court, an appeal from a decision of a justice of the peace or municipal
court

“* * * shall be perfected within fifteen days after
notification to the party of the judgment complained of, (a) by filing
with the justice of the peace or municipal judge a notice of appeal;
(b) by delivering a certificate of the municipal treasurer showing that
the appellant has deposited the appellate court docket fee, or, in’
chartered cities, a certificate of the clerk of such court showing
receipt of the said fee; and (c) by giving a bond.”

Assuming that the petition in said civil case No. T-708 had been
filed within 15 days from, notice of the decision of the justice of the
peace court, which is contested by petitioner herein, and that payment
of the docket fees for case No. T-708 is a substantial compliance with
subdivision (b) of said section 2, still respondents herein have not
complied with subdivisions (a) and (c) of said provision. Indeed, said
respondents have not filed with the justice of the peace a notice of
appeal. Neither have they ever given the requisite appeal bond. Hence,
they have not perfected an appeal. In fact, respondent Judge stated’ in
his order of .January 24, 1960, that the main respondents herein have
“now lost their right to file an appeal.”

Wherefore, the aforementioned orders of respondent Judge, dated
December 24 and 27, 1960, are hereby &et aside and annulled and tha
decision of the justice of the peace court of Umingan in said Civil
Case No. 278 is declared final and executory, with costs against
respondents herein. Moreover, the writ of preliminary injunction issued
by this Court on May 4, 1961, is hereby made permanent.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.