PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, AS JUDGE OF THE CITY COURT OF QUEZON CITY, THE CLERK OF COURT, CITY COURT OF QUEZON CITY, SANCHO R. JACINT…

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing the petition herein.

Petitioners, Pilar T. del Rosario and Mariano V. del Rosario were
defendants in detainer case No. 5039 of the Municipal Court of Quezon
City, instituted by respondents, Sancho R. Jacinto and Domingo C.
Bascara, to recover the possession of a land, as well as damages,
attorney’s fees and costs. In due course, on July 15, 1963, said court,
presided over by Hon. Damian Jimenez, Judge, rendered decision,
sentencing the Del Rosarios to vacate said land and pay to plaintiffs
therein and respondents herein P200 a month from a stated date, in
addition to f500 as attorney’s fees. On July 24, 1963, said respondents
filed a motion for the amendment and reconsideration of said decision
in the sense of increasing the amount therein awarded to them by way of
compensation for the use of said land. The next day, the Del Rosarios
filed a notice of appeal. On August 1, 1963, respondent Judge rendered
an amended decision increasing the compensation awarded to the
aforementioned respondents to P400 a month. Soon thereafter, the Del
Rosarios commenced in the Court of First Instance of Rizal the present
action for certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary and
mandatory injunction against respondent Judge, as well as the Clerk of
said Municipal Court of Quezon City and the plaintiffs in the detainer
case for the purpose, among others, of annulling the aforementioned
amended decision, upon the ground that the municipal court had no
jurisdiction to render said amended decision in view of the appeal
taken by the Del Rosarios prior thereto. After appropriate proceedings,
the Court of First Instance of Rizal issued the order appealed from
dismissing said petition for certiorari for the reason that,
a motion for reconsideration having been filed by the plaintiffs in the
detainer case, the appeal interposed by the Del Rosarios subsequently
thereto did not take away from the court its authority to act on said
motion for reconsideration. Hence this appeal taken by the Del Rosarios.

It is clear that the appeal is absolutely devoid of merit, for (a)
the amended decision complained of is appealable, so that neither certiorari nor prohibition is the proper remedy against said decision;^[1] and (b) the motion for reconsideration of the main respondents herein had been filed before the original decision of respondent Judge had become final and executory and before
the Del Rosarios had interposed their appeal, which, obviously, could
not deprive the said respondents herein of their right to press for the
resolution of their aforementioned motion for reconsideration or the
respondent Judge of his authority and duty to pass upon said motion in
accordance with the merits thereof.^[2]

Accordingly, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners herein. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

^[1] Associated Labor Union, et al. vs. Hon. Judge Ramolete, 121 Phil. 559; Socorro vs. Ortiz, et al., L-23608, December 24, 1964; Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-20614 and L-21517, May 25, 1964; Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Hon. Bello, et al., 119 Phil. 499; Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corporation vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, et al.,119 Phil. 27; De la Cruz, Jr., et al. vs. Sta. Maria, etc., et al. 117 Phil. 1010.

^[2] People vs. Ursua, 60 Phil., 252; People vs. Rodriguez, 51 Off. Gaz,. (8) 4015; Marinduque Transportation Co., Inc., et al. vs. Public Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-18528, July 31, 1963; Arroyo vs. Hon. Eulogio Mencias, etc., et al., 122 Phil. 389.