ELEUTERIO CANEDA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GREGORIO S. NARVASA, AND/OR THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE FIFTH BRANCH AND/OR COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, PROVINCIAL…

This is an appeal by certiorari filed by the petitioner against an order of
the respondent Court dismissing a petition filed by the herein petitioner in
CA-G. R. No. 28667-R, Eleuterio Caneda vs. Hon. Gregorio S. Narvasa, et al., on
the ground of lack of merits. In the petition Caneda alleged as a first cause of
action that in Civil Case No. 25376 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
filed by Philamgen against him (Eleuterio Caneda) and Celerino Delgado, judgment
was rendered sentencing the defendants to pay to plaintiff P2,986.50,
notwithstanding the fact that no summons was served upon petitioner Eleuterio
Caneda, but that a certain lawyer representing himself to be petitioner’s
attorney signed the summons for him (defendant); as a second cause of action,
that in Civil Case No. 26428, also of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Philamgen as plaintiff and the herein petitioner Eleuterio Caneda, Celerino
Delgado and Pedro Labra as defendants, the latter were sentenced to pay the sum
of P4,597.50 in spite of the fact that Eleuterio Caneda was again not served
summons, said summons having been received in petitioner’s behalf by his
co-defendant Celerino Delgado; and as third cause of action, that in Civil Case
No. 26429, also of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled Philamgen vs.
Eleuterio Caneda and Celerino Delgado, judgment was rendered against said
defendants including petitioner, sentencing them to pay P3,000.00 notwitstanding
the fact that no summons was served upon the petitioner herein, the summons
having been received for him by his co-defendant Celerino Delgado. It is further
alleged as a cause for complaint that in the first suit, Civil Case No. 25376 of
the Court of First Instance of Manila, one Rosa V. Pangilinan, with office
and/or residence at Enad Building, Juan Luna St., Cebu City, represented himself
as counsel for petitioner in violation of the Rules, petitioner herein not
having a residence or place of business at Enad Building, Juan Luna St., Cebu
City; that in the second and third actions, hearing proceeded without summons
having been served upon petitioner herein; that in none of the above actions has
the petitioner ever engaged the services of Celerino Delgado, or authorized him
to receive summons for him, or to appear for him as counsel; that the petitioner
has been deprived of his day in court, respondent Philamgen having without his
knowledge and with malice and bad faith filed and/or proceeded with the
proceedings and/or delayed application for issuance of writ of execution of the
judgments rendered, etc.; that respondent Philamgen in the civil cases above
mentioned pretended good faith in accepting forged signatures of the herein
petitioner as genuine, etc.; and that the petitioner has no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the decisions in said civil
cases having become final by lapse of time and the same are pending execution.
The prayer asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
restraining the respondent judge, the sheriffs of Cebu and Bohol, and their
agents or representatives, from executing the judgments rendered in said civil
cases; and after trial to declare the decisions or the judgments in the above
entitled cases null and void, as entered without jurisdiction and thereafter
declare the preliminary injunction issued as permanent.

The resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition reads
thus:

“Acting upon the verified petition filed by counsel for petitioner in case
CA-G. R. No. 28667-R, Eleuterio Caneda vs. Hon. Gregorio S. Narvasa, et al.,
praying, on the grounds therein stated, that upon petitioner’s filing of a bond
fixed by the Court, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the
respondents, Hon. Gregorio S. Narvasa or any presiding judge of the Fifth Branch
of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the Provincial Sheriff of Cebu and the
Provincial SherifF of Bohol or any of their duly authorized representatives from
enforcing the decision and writs of execution issued in Civil Cases No. 25376,
Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc., vs. Celerino Delgado, et al.,
No. 26428, Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Celerino Delgado,
et al., and No. 26429, Philippine-American General Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
Celerino Delgado et al., of the Court of First Instance of Manila; and after
hearing, the decisions rendered by the respondent Judge in the above-entitled
civil cases insofar as it affects the petitioner be annulled and be declared
null and void and the aforesaid cases against him be dismissed; and considering
the allegation in the petition itself that the decisions in the afore-entitled
civil cases have already become final and hence can no longer be appealed, for
which reason the remedy sought herein is not in aid of the Court’s appellate
jurisdiction; and considering further that the question of whether or not the
respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner in the
aforementioned civil cases is one of fact requiring presentation of evidence,
which can only be done in the appropriate civil action; the Court RESOLVED to
DENY the petition for lack of merits, and consequently to DISMISS the case, as
the same hereby is DISMISSED without pronouncement as to
costs.”

We find merit in the petition. Section 30 of the Judiciary Act of 1948
defines the pertinent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals thus:

“SEC. 30. Original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.—The Court of
Appeals shall have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary
writs and process in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.”

The authority of the Court of Appeals to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, injunction, certiorari and habeas corpus in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction has been held to be based on the existence of a right to appeal to
it from the judgment on the merits. Tuason & Co., etc. vs. CA., G. R. No.
L-18128, December 26, 1961; Republic vs. Tuason, et al, G. R. No. L-18672,
December 26, 1961; Tuason & Co., Inc., etc., vs. Sanvictores, G. R. No.
L-16836, January 30, 1962.) For the Court of Appeals to have jurisdiction in
said special civil cases it is not necessary that a party has actually appealed
or will take an appeal against decisions or resolutions of the Court of First
Instance; it is enough if it appears from the plaintiff’s petition that the
petitioner has a right to appeal according to law from the order or decision of
the Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals. (Breslin, et al. vs. Luzon
Stevedoring Co., et al., CA-G. R. No. 3121-R, Sept. 29, 1949; Valero vs. Ysip,
et al., CA-G. R. No. 4896-R, June 30, 1950.)

There is no doubt in the case at bar that had petitioner been notified of the
proceedings taken against him in the manner provided by the Rules, he could have
brought timely appeal against the judgments subject of his petition for
annulment, it appearing that the amounts involved in the actions fall within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. In the case of Salva vs.
Palacio, et al., 90 Phil., 731; 53 Off. Gaz. (10) 3089, this Court in denying a
petition filed before it, held:

“This petition should have been filed in the Court of Appeals because it is a
special civil remedy in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals. Had the record on appeal been allowed it would have come under the
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.”

The Court of Appeals has what may be known as a supervisory power over the
courts of first instance, because ordinarily decisions or orders of these lower
courts are appealable thereto. The case at bar is an example where the
supervisory power should be exercised by the Court of Appeals to correct
apparent errors affecting the validity of the proceedings before the lower
court. It is not, as stated in the resolution of the Court of Appeals appealed
from, the fact that evidence would be taken that determines whether or not the
Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for injunction. Were
we to follow the ruling enunciated in the order appealed from, petitioner here
would never have any remedy at all. Besides, the certified copies of the
summonses and the service thereof to petitioner herein in the three cases
subject of his petition for annulment are enough to prove the validity of his
assertions that there was no service of summons upon him or that it had been
irregular. Copies of the summonses have been furnished to this Court in the
record and we are satisfied that the claim of petitioner stated in his petition,
that he has not been summoned in accordance with the rules, is well-founded.

For the foregoing considerations, the petition is hereby granted, the
decisions or judgments rendered against the petitioner are hereby declared null
and void in so far as they affect the petitioner, and the preliminary injunction
issued upon the filing of the petition is hereby made permanent. With costs
against respondents Philippine-American General Insurance Co., Inc., Celerino
Delgado and Pedro Labra. So ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala,
and Makalintal, JJ., concur.