G.R. No. L-14355; May 20, 1960
DR. JOSE D. DACUDAO, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUDGE AGUSTIN D. DUEÑAS and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Dr. Jose D. Dacudao was a defendant in Civil Case No. 98 before the Justice of the Peace Court of Dingle, presided over by respondent Judge Agustin D. Dueñas. A decision was rendered against Dacudao on February 9, 1957, and he received notice on February 16, 1957. On March 1, 1957, Dacudao filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond. The respondent judge forwarded the records to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. However, the clerk of court of the CFI returned the records on March 8, 1957, because Dacudao had failed to deposit the appellate court docket fee. On March 12, 1957, the plaintiff, Milagros J. Catalan, moved for execution. On March 16, 1957, Dacudao learned of the records’ return, objected to the motion for execution, and asked the respondent judge to forward the records again, submitting a certificate of deposit for the docket fee issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Dingle. Despite this, the respondent judge granted the motion for execution on March 19, 1957. Dacudao then filed a petition for certiorari with the CFI of Iloilo, seeking to annul the execution order and alleging that his failure to deposit the fee on time was due to the respondent judge’s assurance that his appeal papers were complete and the judge’s refusal to accept payment. The CFI issued a preliminary injunction but later dismissed the petition and dissolved the injunction, finding Dacudao negligent for not ensuring the docket fee was deposited. Dacudao appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Iloilo erred in dismissing Dacudao’s petition for certiorari and upholding the execution order, given his claim that he was prevented from perfecting his appeal due to the respondent judge’s actions and that he subsequently deposited the fee.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period as required by Rule 40, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that an appeal from a justice of the peace court must be perfected within fifteen days by filing a notice of appeal, delivering a certificate of deposit for the docket fee, and giving a bond. Dacudao failed to deposit the docket fee within the fifteen-day period from notice of the judgment (received February 16, 1957). His deposit on March 16, 1957, was untimely. His allegation that the Municipal Treasurer refused the deposit was unsubstantiated as he introduced no evidence to support it, and the case was submitted for decision without any proof. The subsequent acceptance of the deposit by the Treasurer on March 16 indicated no prior refusal. The Court distinguished cited cases involving defective appeal bonds, as here there was a complete absence of the required deposit within the period. Furthermore, the petition for certiorari was fatally defective because Milagros J. Catalan, the prevailing party in the original case whose rights would be directly affected, was not included as an indispensable party. Therefore, the respondent judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution, and the lower court correctly dismissed the petition.