G.R. No. L-31762 September 19, 1973
JULIA ASIS AMARGO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MANUEL DE JESUS AND LUZ MIRANDA DE JESUS, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from an unlawful detainer suit filed by the De Jesus spouses against Julia Amargo in the City Court of Manila, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Amargo appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). During a pre-trial hearing on June 20, 1969, Amargo’s counsel allegedly manifested that after the plaintiffs presented their evidence, he would submit the case for decision. The presiding judge dictated an order in open court reflecting this manifestation and noting the parties’ agreement to delegate the reception of evidence to a commissioner. The reception proceeded before the commissioner, where Amargo’s counsel cross-examined the plaintiffs’ witnesses. Subsequently, Amargo filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 20 order, seeking to present her own evidence, which the CFI denied, citing her failure to specify what evidence she intended to present and the court’s impression that she initially desired to present none. The CFI later affirmed the City Court’s judgment.
Amargo then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, contending the June 20, 1969 order was null and void due to the absence of supporting stenographic notes, arguing the filled-out order form did not accurately reflect her counsel’s actual manifestation. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, noting the cited rule on judgments did not apply to interlocutory orders and that the petition was defective for not joining the plaintiffs in the ejectment case as respondents.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Order dated June 20, 1969, and the subsequent proceedings and judgment of the CFI are null and void due to the alleged lack of stenographic notes to support the recitals in said order.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, holding the CFI’s order and judgment were valid. The Court clarified that the constitutional and statutory requirement for decisions to be in writing and based on evidence applies specifically to judgments on the merits, not to interlocutory orders like the one in question. The absence of stenographic notes for such an order does not render it void. The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in judicial proceedings, which stands in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary. Amargo’s claim that the order did not accurately state her counsel’s manifestation was undermined by her own subsequent actions, including her motion for reconsideration which admitted the factual recitals of the order and her participation in the cross-examination before the commissioner. These actions constituted a waiver of any objection to the procedure. Furthermore, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the original petition was defective for non-joinder of indispensable parties, a procedural flaw Amargo only corrected in her appeal to the Supreme Court. The rulings of the lower courts were therefore sustained.