G.R. No. L-30; September 14, 1945
BERNARDINA GALAO Y FONG LAY, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE POMPEYO DIAZ, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and ANGEL JOSE REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. A-47 of the Municipal Court of Manila, a judgment was rendered against the defendants (Bernardina Galao, et al.) on April 25, 1945, and they were notified on April 26, 1945. On April 28, the defendants filed a motion for new trial, which was denied on April 30. The parties were not notified of this order of denial. On May 8, the defendants filed an amended motion for new trial, which was denied on May 9, 1945. Again, the parties were not notified of this denial. On May 14, the defendants appealed the Municipal Court’s decision to the Court of First Instance. On July 9, 1945, the plaintiff (Angel Jose Realty Corporation) moved to dismiss the appeal for being filed out of time. On July 19, the respondent Judge dismissed the appeal and declared the appealed judgment final and executory. The defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied on July 30. The petitioners then initiated this proceeding.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the appeal from the Municipal Court on the ground that it was filed out of time, considering the filing of motions for new trial and the lack of notice of the orders denying them.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was timely filed and the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing it. The motions for new trial, filed within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspended the running of the appeal period pursuant to Rule 40, sections 2 and 4. The applicable rule for inferior courts (like the Municipal Court) was Rule 4, section 16, which allowed a new trial to correct an error or injustice, not Rule 37 which applied to Courts of First Instance. The defendants’ motion, which sought to correct an injustice from a judgment by default, was a proper motion for new trial under Rule 4, section 16. Furthermore, the failure of the Municipal Court to notify the parties of the orders denying the motions for new trial made it impossible to determine precisely when the appeal period resumed. To prevent similar issues, the Supreme Court directed that inferior courts must provide written notice to parties of all resolutions on motions for reconsideration and new trial, just as notice of the decision is given. Treating the petition as one for mandamus (despite being titled certiorari), the Supreme Court ordered the respondent Judge to reinstate and proceed with the appeal on its merits. Costs were adjudged against the respondent corporation.