G.R. No. L-1235; July 29, 1947
Amado Buenaventura, petitioner, vs. Eulalio Garcia, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, and Basilio Garcia, respondents.

FACTS

On January 7, 1946, petitioner Amado Buenaventura filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the reconstitution of the record of Civil Case No. R-7848, “Basilio Garcia vs. Amado Buenaventura.” He alleged that the records were destroyed during the war, that a decision was rendered on November 21, 1941, that the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, and that this dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme Court in July 1944 before the records were returned to the court of origin. After a hearing where the adverse party’s counsel arrived late, Judge Emilio Peña issued an order (“Auto”) on January 28, 1946, declaring the record reconstituted based on the copies of pleadings and the testimony given by the representation of the defendant (Buenaventura). The reconstituted record included copies of the 1941 decision and the Court of Appeals’ resolution dismissing the appeal. Attorney Tansinsin testified at the hearing that the Supreme Court had affirmed the dismissal. More than a month later, Buenaventura moved for execution of the 1941 judgment. Respondent Basilio Garcia’s counsel objected, arguing there was no documentary evidence in the record showing the Supreme Court’s action. Respondent Judge Eulalio Garcia sustained the objection and refused to issue the writ of execution, prompting this petition for mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or erred in refusing to issue a writ of execution for the November 21, 1941 judgment, based on his finding that the record lacked documentary proof of the Supreme Court’s affirmance of the dismissal of the appeal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, commanding the respondent judge to issue the writ of execution.
1. The order of reconstitution dated January 28, 1946, issued by Judge Peña, which declared the record reconstituted based on the submitted copies and the testimony of petitioner’s counsel, had already become final. Respondent Basilio Garcia never moved to modify or revoke it. Even assuming arguendo that Judge Peña erred in accepting oral testimony about the Supreme Court’s resolution, such error was not jurisdictional. Therefore, another judge of the same court had no authority to modify or revoke that final order.
2. The trial court’s acceptance of oral testimony (secondary evidence) to prove the contents of the lost Supreme Court resolution was permissible under the circumstances. Section 45 of Act No. 3110 does not affect the application of Section 321 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), which allows secondary evidence to prove a document’s contents.
3. The respondents’ counsel did not specifically deny under oath the testimony that the Supreme Court acted on the case in July 1944. His assertions that there was no record of such action before December 1941 or after the war did not controvert the claim of action during the war (July 1944).
4. The insinuation that Supreme Court actions during the Japanese occupation were void is without merit, as settled in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113).
5. Consequently, the January 28, 1946 reconstitution order, which amounted to a declaration that the November 21, 1941 judgment was final and executory, imposed a ministerial duty on the court to issue the writ of execution. Costs were imposed on respondent Basilio Garcia.
Separate Opinions:
* Justice Hilado concurred in the result on a different ground: regardless of the validity of occupation-era court proceedings, respondent Basilio Garcia had taken no steps to perfect an appeal to the recreated Court of Appeals of the Republic, which in his view allowed the trial court’s judgment to become final.
* Justice Perfecto dissented, arguing that the petition was unmeritorious because the case was appealed and there was no documentary evidence of the appeal’s dismissal. He also maintained that any Supreme Court action in July 1944 was by the puppet republic’s Supreme Court and was invalid.