G.R. No. L-17954; April 30, 1964
Tan Ching, petitioner-appellee, vs. The Hon. A. Geraldez, Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Manila, Macario Ofilada, Sheriff of Manila and Lao Kong Hing, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

On March 22, 1955, the Municipal Court of Manila rendered a final and executory judgment in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 35882) ordering Tan Ching to vacate the premises and pay rentals to Lao Kong Hing. Despite the finality, Lao Kong Hing did not execute the judgment. Instead, Tan Ching remained in possession, continued paying rentals, and subsequently entered into a sublease agreement concerning the same premises. Nearly four years later, on December 20, 1958, Lao Kong Hing filed an ex-parte petition for execution solely for ejectment. The respondent judge issued a writ of execution. Tan Ching moved to quash, arguing novation and that Lao Kong Hing’s own lease with the building owner had expired, after which Tan Ching contracted directly with said owner.
The Municipal Court denied the motion. Tan Ching then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, which ruled in his favor. The CFI set aside the writ of execution, reasoning that the parties’ post-judgment conduct re-established a lessor-lessee relationship, Lao Kong Hing had lost his standing as sub-lessor, and a new lease existed between Tan Ching and the building owner, rendering the 1955 judgment unenforceable. Lao Kong Hing moved for reconsideration and new trial, which the CFI denied on May 24, 1960.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the CFI correctly denied Lao Kong Hing’s appeal from its certiorari decision for being perfected out of time, and whether the grounds for relief from judgment were valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s orders, dismissing the appeal. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of appeal periods. Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is strictly required; failure to do so renders the lower court’s judgment final and executory and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. Lao Kong Hing’s appeal was filed six days late. His proffered excuse—excusable negligence due to his wife’s hospitalization and his resulting preoccupation and financial exhaustion—was correctly rejected by the CFI as insufficient. The Court noted that communication between client and counsel, who knew each other’s addresses, was possible, and counsel could have sought an extension from the court. The failure to take such steps constituted mere oversight, not excusable negligence warranting relief from judgment.
The Court also observed that, in any event, a review of the CFI’s decision on the merits revealed it was not without legal basis. The CFI had validly considered the substantive changes in circumstances, including the re-establishment of a landlord-tenant relationship through continuous possession and payment, the expiration of Lao Kong Hing’s head lease, and Tan Ching’s direct contract with the owner, which collectively could render the old ejectment judgment unenforceable. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of the appeal on procedural grounds and saw no compelling reason to disturb the CFI’s substantive ruling.