G.R. No. 47745 ; June 17, 1941
JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS, CO., recurrente y apelante, vs. MARIANO NABLE, Juez del Juzgado Municipal de la Ciudad de Manila, y MARCELO CASTILLO, recurridos y apelados.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Jose Oliver Successors, Co., initiated Civil Case No. 113157 in the Municipal Court of Manila against Marcelo Castillo to collect P55, the balance for a “Pilot” radio, or to recover possession of the radio if Castillo failed to pay. On August 18, 1937, the court rendered a decision ordering Castillo to pay P20 or, alternatively, to return the radio, plus P10 as attorney’s fees and costs. Castillo was notified of this judgment on September 7, 1937. On September 15, 1937, upon Castillo’s motion, the Municipal Court amended its decision, ordering him to pay P20 within 30 days, after which the order for the seizure of the radio would be confirmed; the award for attorney’s fees and costs was maintained. On October 8, 1937, before the 30-day period expired, Castillo, as defendant, offered to pay P50.36 (the total amount of the amended judgment) to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff refused to accept the money. Castillo then deposited the money with the clerk of the Municipal Court and filed a motion for execution of the amended judgment. On November 5, 1937, the Municipal Judge issued an order directing the return of the radio to Castillo and the delivery of the deposited money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Municipal Judge and Castillo, alleging that the judge acted in excess of jurisdiction by amending the September 15, 1937 judgment, which itself amended the original August 18 judgment. The Court of First Instance dismissed the action, with costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which elevated the case to the Supreme Court as it involved only questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Municipal Court had the power to amend its original judgment of August 18, 1937, after the 15-day period for appeal had allegedly lapsed.
2. Whether the amended judgment of September 15, 1937, is valid and legal.
3. Whether the order of November 5, 1937, directing the return of the radio to Castillo, despite his alleged failure to pay five months of rent, is legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.
1. On the power to amend the judgment: The plaintiff’s first assignment of error is without merit. The Court of First Instance correctly held that the Municipal Judge had the power to amend the August 18, 1937 judgment. Castillo was notified of the original judgment only on September 7, 1937. From this date until September 15, 1937, when the amended judgment was issued, only 8 days had passed. Therefore, the original judgment had not yet become final because the 15-day period to appeal had not lapsed. Act No. 3615 , which amended Article 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was in force at the time, provides that the period for appeal from a judgment of a Justice of the Peace or Municipal Court begins to run, not from the date of the judgment, but from the date it is notified to the parties.
2. On the validity of the amended judgment: The plaintiff’s contention that the amended judgment of September 15, 1937, is null because it was rendered after the original judgment had become final and executory is unfounded. Since the original judgment of August 18, 1937, was not yet final when it was amended, and the Municipal Judge had the power to amend it, the logical and legal consequence is that the amended judgment of September 15, 1937, is valid.
3. On the legality of the November 5, 1937 order: The plaintiff’s final assignment of error is also without merit. The amended judgment of September 15, 1937, was alternative: it gave Castillo the opportunity to pay his debt within 30 days or obligated him to return the radio if he did not pay. Within the 30-day period, Castillo offered to pay the full amount of the amended judgment, but the plaintiff unjustifiably refused to accept the money, forcing Castillo to deposit it with the court clerk. Therefore, Castillo had the right to keep the radio because he offered payment within the fixed period and deposited the money when the plaintiff refused it. The November 5, 1937 order, in essence, was an order for the execution of the amended September 15 judgment. Furthermore, both the amended judgment and the November 5 order are in harmony with Article 1454-A of the Civil Code, incorporated by Act No. 4122 , because the plaintiff, having chosen to collect the unpaid rent for five months and the court having granted this, cannot also demand the return of the radio.