GR 37372; (July, 1932) (Digest)
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, and HERMAN SCHUCK, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Richard Sherman lost a case in the justice of the peace court of Talipao, Sulu. He filed a notice of appeal within the reglementary period, and the appeal was docketed in the Court of First Instance of Sulu. Respondent Herman Schuck moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Sherman failed to comply with the requirements of Section 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended. The respondent judge granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, which was a final order disposing of the proceeding.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to annul the order dismissing the appeal and to allow the appeal.
RULING
No. The petition for mandamus is denied. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to show that there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law, as required by Section 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order dismissing the appeal was a final disposition of the case, and mandamus is not the appropriate remedy under these circumstances.
AI Generated by Armztrong.