G.R. No. L-18877, August 31, 1967.
HON. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, as Judge of First Instance of Manila, BENITO FERMIN, JESUS S. TENCHAVEZ, TAN BOON SIONG, JOSE C. TIONGSON, QUIRINO APACIBLE, MARCOS D. MASA and TAN TO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (4th Div.), J.C.V. CHAVEZ, OCTAVIANO LUDENA, SEE KUI, THOMAS K. C. UY, FELIPE JUICO, JAIME A. VERGARA and GILBERTO NERI, respondents.

FACTS

On February 26, 1960, respondents J.C.V. Chavez, et al., commenced Civil Case No. 42650 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, in the name of Quezon City Export and Import, Inc., against petitioners Benito Fermin, et al. The complaint sought to restrain Fermin, et al. from holding meetings or acting for the corporation, alleging they had ceased to be officers and that Chavez, et al. were the rightful officers. It also prayed for the surrender of corporate papers and damages. Subsequently, Fermin, et al., along with two others, instituted Civil Case No. 42704 against Chavez, et al., seeking a declaration that they (Fermin, et al.) were the legitimate directors and officers, and for an injunction and damages against Chavez, et al. The two cases were consolidated for joint trial. After trial, Judge Juan P. Enriquez rendered a single decision on January 13, 1961, dismissing the complaint in Case No. 42650 and ruling in favor of Fermin, et al. in Case No. 42704, declaring them lawfully entitled to their positions and awarding them damages. Twenty-eight days after notice of this decision, Chavez, et al. filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond in Case No. 42650. Fermin, et al. moved for execution, arguing the decision had become final because the 15-day appeal period for quo warranto proceedings applied. Chavez, et al. countered that the 30-day period for ordinary appeals applied, as Case No. 42650 was an action for injunction. Judge Enriquez sustained Fermin, et al., refused to give due course to the appeal, and granted execution. Chavez, et al. then filed a mandamus action in the Court of Appeals to compel the allowance of their appeal and to restrain execution. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Chavez, et al., holding Case No. 42650 was an action for injunction and the appeal was timely. Fermin, et al. and Judge Enriquez elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether Civil Case No. 42650 is a quo warranto proceeding, thereby making the 15-day period for appeal applicable, or an ordinary action for injunction, thereby making the 30-day period for appeal applicable.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Civil Case No. 42650 is essentially a quo warranto proceeding. The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the petition for mandamus, thereby denying the appeal of Chavez, et al. as having been filed out of time. The Court held that the core issue in Case No. 42650 was the determination of which group (Fermin, et al. or Chavez, et al.) had the rightful title to the corporate offices. The prayer for injunctive relief was merely auxiliary to this primary objective of testing title to office, which is the characteristic of a quo warranto proceeding. The Court noted the substantial identity of the issues in Case No. 42650 and Case No. 42704 (which was expressly labeled a quo warranto action and whose decision had become final and executory). Consequently, the 15-day appeal period under the rules governing quo warranto applied. Since Chavez, et al. filed their appeal 28 days after notice, it was filed beyond the reglementary period, making the trial court’s decision final and executory. The finality of the decision in Case No. 42704 also barred the relitigation of the same issue in Case No. 42650.