GR 45128; (August, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45128; August 18, 1936
CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC., and C. KELLING, assignee of the Insolvency of YU GUIOC LO & CO. and YU PING KUN, petitioner, vs. THE JUDGE OF THE FIRST BRANCH OF THE COURT OF INSTANCE OF MANILA and FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents.
FACTS
In the insolvency proceedings of Yu Guioc Lo & Co. and Yu Ping Kun, the Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order on March 28, 1935, denying a petition by China Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., and the assignee to approve an agreement assigning two properties of the insolvent to China Insurance, conditioned on dissolving all attachments and liens. The petitioners filed subsequent motions essentially seeking the same relief, which were denied on November 5, 1935, and November 23, 1935. Against the November 23 order, they presented a bill of exceptions, but the respondent judge refused to certify it, prompting this petition for mandamus to compel certification. The respondent Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., argued the order was not appealable.
ISSUE
Whether the order of November 23, 1935, denying the petition to dissolve attachments and approve the assignment, is appealable under the Insolvency Law, the Constitution, or Commonwealth Act No. 3.
RULING
No. The petition for mandamus is dismissed. The order is not appealable. The Insolvency Law did not grant a right to appeal from such an order. Even assuming Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution and Commonwealth Act No. 3 modified the Insolvency Law to grant appellate jurisdiction, they do not apply retroactively to make the March 28, 1935, order appealable, as it became final when issued. The November 23 order is merely a reiteration of the prior unappealable orders; its issuance after the Constitution’s effectivity does not confer a new right of appeal. Laws defining jurisdiction are substantive, not procedural, and generally do not apply retroactively to affect vested rights. Furthermore, the Constitution’s transitory provision (Article XV, Section 3) requires pending cases to be determined under laws in force at its adoption, which here did not allow such an appeal. The order is interlocutory, not final, and thus not appealable.
AI Generated by Armztrong.