JULITA R. VILLAREAL, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. JUAN FRANCO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On June 3, 1952, the espouses Julita R. Villareal and Jose P.
Villareal instituted civil case No. 20774 of the Municipal Court of
Manila, against defendant Juan Franco, for the recovery of the sum of
Pl,225.97, with interest thereon, plus P300, as damages by way of
collection expenses and attorney’s fees, apart from the costs. In due
course, said court rendered judgment on June 23, 1952, sentencing
Franco to pay the sum of P930 and P335.70, with interest thereon and
costs. Defendant appealed from this decision to the Court of First
Instance of Manila, which, on motion of the plaintiffs, dismissed the
appeal and remanded the record to the municipal court for execution of
the aforementioned judgment. The case is now before us on appeal, taken
by the defendant, from the order of dismissal of the court of first
instance.

The appeal hinges on whether or not said judgment of the municipal
court had become final and executory prior to the appeal interposed by
defendant Juan Franco. As above stated, the aforementioned judgment was
rendered on June 23, 1952. About a month later, or on July 22, the
municipal court issued, on motion of the plaintiffs, the corresponding
writ of execution, copy of which was served on the defendant,
personally, on July 30. Four days later, the sheriff returned the writ
unsatisfied. Thereupon, or on August 13, plaintiffs filed, with the
Commissioner of Civil Service, an administrative complaint, against the
herein defendant, he being a civil service employee. Copy of said
judgment and of the sheriff’s return were annexed to said
administrative complaint, copy of which, together with its
aforementioned annexes, were served on Franco, on or before August 14,
for, in a letter bearing this date he acknowledge receipt thereof. On
August 28, the clerk of the municipal court mailed a copy of said
judgment to the defendant, who claims he has not received it. On
September 27, defendant filed a motion to set aside said writ of
execution. By an order dated October 1, this motion was granted, and
nine (9) days later, or on October 10, defendant filed his notice of
appeal and appeal bond, and deposited the amount of the corresponding
docket fees.

When the case was already in the court of first instance, plaintiffs
moved for the dismissal of the appeal upon the ground that the same had
been taken long after the expiration of the statutory period therefor.
This motion was, at first, denied by an order dated November 7, 1952.
However, on motion for reconsideration of the plaintiffs, the court
subsequently revised its view, and, by an order dated November 18,
1952, it set aside the order of November 7, and dismissed the appeal
and caused the record to be remanded to the municipal court for
execution of the decision thereof.

Defendant assails this order as erroneous, upon the ground that, pursuant to section 7 of Rule 27 of the Rules of Court:

“Final orders or judgments shall be served either personally or by registered mail”.

and that when he appealed on October 10, 1952, copy of the judgment
of the municipal court had not been served upon him, either personally
or by registered mail. Said section 7 is, however, part of the Rules
governing “Procedure in Court Instance,” which are found in Rule 5 to
39, inclusive, of the Rules of Court. For this reason, plaintiffs
maintain that said section 7 is inapplicable to the case at bar.
Indeed, the “Procedure in Inferior Courts,” which include justice of
the peace courts and municipal courts, is covered by Rule 4 of the
Rules of Court. It is interesting to note that section 19 of said Rule
4 provides that:

“Rules 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 28, 29, 30, and 39 are
applicable in inferior courts in cases falling within their
jurisdictions and in so far as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this rule.”

This omission of Rule 27 from the list of rules of “Procedure in
Courts of First Instance” thus specifically made applicable to
“inferior courts,” would seem to warrant the conclusion that said Rule
27, and, accordingly, its section 7, upon which appellant relies, was
not intended to apply to justice of the peace courts and municipal
courts. However, in Manabat vs. Aquino^[*] (49 Off. Gaz. 1834), we
applied section 1 of Rule 27 of the Rules of Court to an appeal from a
decision of a justice of the peace court. At any rate, Rule 40 of the
Rules of Court, entitled “Appeal from Inferior Courts to Courts of
First Instance,” provided; in section 2 thereof, that:

“An appeal 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.” (Italics supplied.)

Neither this section nor any other provision of the Rules of Court
determines explicitly the manner in which notice of the judgment of
inferior courts shall be served. In the case at bar it is not denied,
however, that on July 30, 1952, copy of the writ of execution, setting
forth the gists of the decision of the municipal court, was served on
defendant-appellant. Moreover, copy of said decision was received by
the defendant on or before August 14, 1952, as part of the
administrative complaint filed against him by plaintiffs herein. What
is more, another copy of said decision was mailed to him by the clerk
of the municipal court on August 28, 1952. This service by mail would
have become complete five (5) days later, or on or about September 3 or
4, 1952, if we applied section 8 of Rule 27, which appellant invokes in
his favor. It is obvious, therefore, that, when appellant’s notice of
appeal was filed on October 10, 1952, more than fifteen (15) days from
actual notice, or receipt of copy, of the decision of the municipal
court had elapsed. In other words, even if section 7 of Rule 27 were
applied, said decision was then already final and executory.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant Juan Franco. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Reyes, J, B. L. JJ., concur.

---

^[*] 92 Phil., 1025.