G.R. No. L-1523; April 30, 1949
BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Biñan Transportation Company, Inc. was sued for damages in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. A decision was rendered against it on March 22, 1943. The records were lost during the war, and upon motion, the court reconstituted the pleadings and decision on December 20, 1946. Petitioner claimed it only became aware of the decision after reconstitution, alleging it never received notice of the trial or the original judgment. It filed motions for new trial and for relief from judgment, which the respondent judge denied as filed out of time. The judge then issued an order for execution of the 1943 judgment. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the judgment was null and void for lack of due process (no notice of hearing or decision) and that the judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the denial of the motions for new trial and relief from judgment and the order of execution, considering the claim that the underlying 1943 judgment is null and void for lack of notice.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court held that the proper remedy against the denial of the motions for new trial and relief was an appeal, not certiorari. The respondent judge had jurisdiction to rule on those motions; any error in denying them was an error of judgment, not an act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court invoked the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed (juris tantum presumption under the Rules of Court), meaning it is presumed that proper notices of trial and judgment were given. Petitioner’s attempt to rebut this presumption via a motion for relief under Rule 38 was correctly denied as untimely. Certiorari does not lie where the remedy of appeal is available.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Perfecto):
Justice Perfecto dissented, arguing that the 1943 judgment was null and void ab initio because petitioner was not notified of the amended complaint, the hearing, or the decision, constituting a denial of due process. A void judgment can be challenged at any time, and the trial court had no jurisdiction to order its execution. The notice of reconstitution was not equivalent to notice of the decision. He would have granted the petition, declared the judgment void, and set aside the writ of execution.

AI Generated by Armztrong.