G.R. No. 37372. July 26, 1932
RICHARD SHERMAN, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO HORRILLENO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, ACTING JUDGE IN THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AN…
Decisions / Signed Resolutions July 26, 1932 HULL, J.:
HULL, J.:
This is an application for a writ of mandamus, to be directed to the
respondent judge, praying that this court shall command him immediately after
the receipt of such order, to annul all orders dismissing the appeal of
petitioner and to allow saM appeal. The question arises out of a suit by Herman
Schuck against petitioner in the justice oi the peace court of the municipal
district of Talipao, Province of Sulu, in which after trial of the case,
judgment was rendered in favor of said respondent. Thereafter, and within the
period of time authorized by law, petitioner filed his notice of appeal and the
said appeal was filed, registered, and docketed in the Court of First Instance,
for the Province of Sulu, within the period allowed for making the appeal.
Respondent, Herman Schuck, filed a motion to dismiss said appeal on the grounds
that the petitioner had not complied with the “requirements of section 76, of
the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 3615.
respondent judge, praying that this court shall command him immediately after
the receipt of such order, to annul all orders dismissing the appeal of
petitioner and to allow saM appeal. The question arises out of a suit by Herman
Schuck against petitioner in the justice oi the peace court of the municipal
district of Talipao, Province of Sulu, in which after trial of the case,
judgment was rendered in favor of said respondent. Thereafter, and within the
period of time authorized by law, petitioner filed his notice of appeal and the
said appeal was filed, registered, and docketed in the Court of First Instance,
for the Province of Sulu, within the period allowed for making the appeal.
Respondent, Herman Schuck, filed a motion to dismiss said appeal on the grounds
that the petitioner had not complied with the “requirements of section 76, of
the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 3615.
The respondent judge held, that the appeal had not been properly perfected
according to law, and dismissed the appeal. This was a final disposition of the
legal proceeding then pending in the Court of First Instance of Sulu.(Mejia
vs. Alimorong, 4 Phil., 572.)
The allegations in the petition that there is no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law wherein petitioner may enforce his
rights as required by section 222, Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be admitted.
(Fajardo vs. Llorente, 6 Phil., 426.) Petition denied, with costs. So
ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad
Santos, Vickers, Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concur.