G.R. No. L-30006-07, August 31, 1970
Conrado C. De Jesus and Emilia Estrella De Jesus, Petitioners, v. Hon. Felix R. Domingo, Hon. Antonio Peralta Paredes, Special City Court Sheriff Proculo E. Cardenas, and Trinidad Fernandez, Assisted by her husband Ricardo G. Fernandez, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Conrado C. de Jesus and his wife Emilia Estrella de Jesus seek to annul an order of respondent Judge Felix R. Domingo dismissing a petition for relief and a writ of execution issued by respondent City Judge Antonio Peralta Paredes. Trinidad Fernandez sued Conrado de Jesus in the City Court to recover P3,000 based on a promissory note. De Jesus claimed he signed the note for the accommodation of Ramon G. Diaz and filed a third-party complaint against him. The City Court rendered judgment against De Jesus and in turn against Diaz. De Jesus appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), docketed as Civil Case No. 72104, assigned to Judge Domingo. After the pre-trial was reset, neither De Jesus nor his counsel appeared on the new pre-trial date of July 17, 1968. Judge Domingo dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. A motion for reconsideration, alleging excusable neglect due to non-receipt of notice and counsel’s convalescence, was denied. The record was remanded to the City Court, which issued a writ of execution. De Jesus filed motions to lift the execution and levy, claiming the levied properties belonged exclusively to his wife and were not conjugal assets. He also filed a petition for relief in the CFI under Rule 38 against the City Court’s orders. Judge Domingo dismissed this petition, ruling that an order of execution is not a “judgment” under Section 1, Rule 38, and that there was no deprivation of a hearing or appeal due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Petitioners then filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the order of Judge Domingo dismissing the petition for relief is correct, specifically whether a petition for relief under Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is available against the City Court’s orders of execution.
2. Whether the notice of pre-trial and service of orders were sufficient.
3. Whether the CFI acquired jurisdiction over the appealed case.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
1. The order of Judge Domingo dismissing the petition for relief is not subject to correction via certiorari because an order denying a petition for relief is appealable. Independently, the Court held that Section 1, Rule 38 applies only against a “judgment” of an inferior court where a party is deprived of a hearing or prevented from taking an appeal. The orders of the City Court (the writ of execution and the order lifting the suspension of that writ) are not “judgments” within the meaning of Section 1, Rule 38. Furthermore, petitioners were not deprived of a hearing or appeal due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence in relation to these orders. Therefore, Judge Domingo correctly found he had no authority to grant relief under Section 1, Rule 38.
2. The alleged insufficiency of the notice of pre-trial and service of orders was not fully addressed in the provided text’s ruling section, but the Court’s dismissal implies these arguments were unmeritorious or rendered moot by the primary legal conclusion.
3. The Court’s ruling on the inapplicability of Rule 38 relief resolved the case. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was set aside. A separate motion for contempt filed by petitioners against the respondents for alleged violations of the injunction was denied, as the acts complained of occurred before notice of the injunction and there was insufficient proof of ante-dating an order or refusal to comply after notice.