GR L 2582; (March, 1950) (Digest)
March 10, 2026GR L 2584; (March, 1950) (Digest)
March 10, 2026G.R. No. L-2582; March 23, 1950
TRINIDAD SEMIRA and ISIDRO G. MERCADO, petitioners, vs. JUAN ENRIQUEZ, Judge, Court of First Instance of Batangas, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 43 before the Batangas Court of First Instance. Judgment was rendered against them on July 7, 1944. They filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the respondent judge in an order dated May 26, 1948. That order contained a clerical error, stating that the defendants filed the motion for reconsideration, when it was actually the plaintiffs (petitioners). Upon receiving a copy of the denial on June 21, 1948, petitioners immediately filed a petition for correction of this error. Prior to this, they had also filed a petition for an extension of time to perfect an appeal should the motion for reconsideration be denied. The respondent judge took no action on these two petitions and instead, on September 25, 1948, issued an order declaring the 1944 judgment final and executory, reasoning that the extension request was for delay and the correction petition did not suspend the appeal period. Petitioners filed this mandamus action to compel correction of the error, declare that their motion for correction suspended the appeal period, and set aside the order of finality.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for mandamus is procedurally proper and whether the respondent judge acted correctly in declaring the judgment final without first resolving the pending petitions for correction and extension.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, but first directed the amendment of the petition to include the defendants in the lower court as indispensable parties, as they would be directly affected by the outcome. On the merits, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to a resolution of their pending petitions for extension and correction before the judgment could be declared final. The respondent judge had a duty to decide those petitions and it was unfair to declare the judgment final and executory without first complying with that duty. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including the required amendment to implead the defendants.
AI Generated by Armztrong.