G.R. No. L-18376. February 27, 1962.
SY IT, petitioner-appellant, vs. ARSENIO TIANGCO, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Arsenio Tiangco and Bola Singh Pabla filed ejectment complaints against Ang Yee King and Sy It in the Manila Municipal Court. The defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. Without seeking reconsideration of that denial, both defendants, through their respective counsel Enrico I. de la Cruz and Jordan Techico, jointly filed a single petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI rendered a decision on February 11, 1959, dismissing the certiorari petition. A copy of this decision was served on Atty. de la Cruz on February 17, 1959. A motion for reconsideration was filed only on March 12, 1959, which was 23 days later. The CFI denied this motion on April 24, 1959. Atty. Techico received a copy of this denial order on May 5, 1959, but filed a subsequent motion for reconsideration only on July 29, 1959, or 84 days after his receipt. The CFI initially set aside its order but later declared its February 11, 1959 decision final and executory as to Ang Yee King. However, for Sy It, the court held the decision was not yet final, ordering service on Atty. Techico, and later denied a motion for reconsideration from Sy It on March 25, 1961. Sy It then filed his notice of appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal filed by Sy It should be dismissed on the ground that the CFI decision of February 11, 1959, had already become final and executory.

RULING

Yes, the appeal must be dismissed. The decision had become final and executory, depriving the court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The reglementary period to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration in a special civil action for certiorari is 15 days from notice of judgment. The CFI decision was served on one of the joint counsel, Atty. de la Cruz, on February 17, 1959. The joint motion for reconsideration was filed 23 days later, clearly beyond the 15-day period. Service on Atty. de la Cruz constituted valid service on both petitioners because they filed a joint petition represented by both counsel, making them co-counsel in the proceeding. This was confirmed by Atty. Techico’s own statement during a hearing that the motion was a joint submission. Consequently, the decision became final upon the lapse of the reglementary period without a timely motion or appeal. The CFI’s subsequent orders attempting to revive the case for Sy It were issued without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the petition for certiorari was fatally defective from its inception for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the municipal court’s order denying the motion to dismiss, a condition precedent to allow the trial court an opportunity to correct itself. The appeal is dismissed.