GR L 3249; (December, 1906) (Digest)
March 5, 2026GR L 1326; (November, 1906) (Digest)
March 5, 2026G.R. No. L‑3466
December 29, 1906
FACTS
– A judgment was entered on 8 Mar 1906 in favor of Meyer Herman (defendant) in an action brought by Rubert and Guamis (plaintiffs) before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila.
– The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial on 14 Mar, alleging that the findings were “plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.” No order followed.
– On 26 Mar they filed a second motion asking that the decision be set aside and that testimony of Dr. Altman be taken. The motion was heard on 31 Mar, the last day of the term, but the CFI did not decide it until 14 Apr, after the term had closed.
– The CFI ordered the case reopened to receive Dr. Altman’s testimony, despite the court’s finding that the evidence was not newly discovered.
– On 12 Jul 1906 Meyer Herman filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, contending that the CFI lacked jurisdiction to entertain a new‑trial motion after the term in which the judgment was rendered had expired.
– The respondents demurred to the petition; the Supreme Court was called upon to resolve the demurrer.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance possessed jurisdiction to entertain and decide a motion for a new trial after the term in which the original judgment was entered had expired.
RULING
– The Supreme Court held that the CFI retains jurisdiction to consider motions for a new trial even after the term of judgment has closed, citing Santos v. Villafuerte (4 Off. Gaz., 359) and analogous precedents.
– Consequently, the contention that the CFI acted without jurisdiction is untenable. The correctness of the CFI’s April 14 order is not before this Court; the proper remedy for any error is an appeal after a final judgment.
– The demurrer is sustained. The petitioner is given ten (10) days from notice to file an amended complaint; failure to do so will result in entry of final judgment in favor of the respondents with costs.
(Concurrence: Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Mapa, Carson, Tracey. Dissent: Justice Johnson.)