EMILIANO J. VALDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. FERNANDO JUGO, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Valdez versus Jugo

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus filed directly with the Supreme Court by Emiliano J. Valdez against Judge Fernando Jugo of the Court of First Instance of Manila and the other respondents. Valdez asks the Court to compel the respondent judge to give due course to his appeal from a judgment that had gone against him. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's early and emphatic application of the new Rules of Court on motions for new trial: a motion that does not specifically point out the errors it claims is a mere pro forma motion, a paper filed only to delay, and it does not stop the running of the period to appeal.

Procedural History

Valdez was the defeated party in a case decided by the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Judge Jugo. He filed a motion for new trial. The respondent judge did not act favorably on it, and Valdez's appeal was not given due course, evidently on the view that his motion for new trial had not interrupted the period for appeal and that the judgment had already become final. Valdez then came to the Supreme Court by an original action for mandamus, seeking to compel the respondent judge to allow his appeal. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Moran, denied the petition.

Facts

Valdez lost before the Court of First Instance of Manila. On November 22, 1941, he filed a motion for new trial. The motion did not state in detail the reasons in support of the grounds alleged in it. It also did not point out specifically which findings or conclusions of the judgment were unsupported by the evidence or contrary to law.

He set the motion for hearing almost one month later, on December 20, 1941. Asked in oral argument why he had set the hearing so far off, he explained that he wanted time to study the transcript of the testimony of the witnesses and to find out the reasons in support of the grounds alleged in his motion. The Court saw this as an admission that he filed the motion without knowing whether its grounds were good, and that he wanted to delay the proceedings to gain time for study.

He was also asked why, once he was already in Manila and the Manila courts were already open, he did not inquire about the result of his motion for new trial. He answered candidly that he was not interested in speeding up the proceedings because he was the defeated party.

Issues

• Whether or not a motion for new trial that fails to point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment not supported by the evidence or contrary to law is a mere pro forma motion that does not interrupt the period for appeal.
• Whether or not the circumstances of the petitioner's case justify the full rigor of the new rules, so that mandamus will not lie to compel the respondent judge to give due course to his appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 37, Section 2, third paragraph, of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision, provides:

It shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions.

This is the requirement the petitioner's motion failed to meet, and its failure is what made the motion pro forma and unable to interrupt the period for appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner's motion for new trial did not and could not interrupt the period for appeal, because it failed to state in detail, as the rules require, the reasons in support of the grounds alleged in it. Under the third paragraph of Section 2 of Rule 37, a motion for new trial must point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment that are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions. When, as in this case, the motion fails to make that specification, it is treated as a motion pro forma intended merely to delay the proceedings, and as such it shall be stricken out as offensive to the new rules.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner's case justified the full rigor of the new rules, because the circumstances showed a deliberate attempt on his part to delay the proceedings for his own convenience. He filed his motion on November 22, 1941, and set it for hearing almost one month later, on December 20, 1941, explaining that he wanted time to study the transcript and find out the reasons for his grounds. He thus filed the motion without knowing whether its grounds were good. And when asked why he did not inquire about the result of his motion once he was in Manila and the courts were open, he said he was not interested in speeding up the proceedings because he was the defeated party. With such an attitude, the Court said, it cannot be moved to grant an equitable relief.

Doctrine

A motion for new trial must point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment that are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions. A motion that fails to make this specification is a mere pro forma motion, one filed only to delay, and it does not interrupt the period for appeal. A party who shows a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings for his own convenience cannot invoke the equitable remedy of mandamus to gain relief.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus, so the respondent judge prevailed and Valdez's appeal was not given due course.

Remember This

A motion for new trial that does not specifically point out the errors it claims is pro forma and does not interrupt the period for appeal. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a motion for new trial and the rule that a pro forma motion does not toll the appeal period.