GR L 30810; (October 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30810 October 29, 1975
ITT PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERDULFO C. BOISER, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner ITT Philippines, Inc. filed a collection suit against private respondent Erdulfo C. Boiser. After procedural delays and a failure by Boiser to appear at a pre-trial, the trial court declared him in default for failure to file an answer within the reglementary period, despite an earlier answer already on file. A judgment by default was rendered. Boiser claimed he only learned of the judgment when a writ of execution was served, alleging the local postmaster maliciously withheld his mail due to personal animosity stemming from Boiser’s radio commentaries. He filed an “Omnibus Motion for Relief of Judgment, New Trial, to Recall the Writ of Execution and to Suspend Execution,” which the trial court denied. Boiser filed a notice of appeal from this denial, but the trial court granted ITT’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Boiser then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to give due course to his appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly issued a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to give due course to Boiser’s appeal from the order denying his omnibus motion for relief from judgment.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the issuance of the writ of mandamus. The legal logic hinges on the proper remedy when a trial court erroneously dismisses a perfected appeal. Boiser’s omnibus motion, treated as a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, was filed within the reglementary 60-day period from knowledge of the judgment and within six months from its entry. The trial court’s order denying this motion was a final order appealable by record on appeal. Boiser perfected his appeal by timely filing his notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. Consequently, the trial court had a ministerial duty to approve the record on appeal and elevate it. When the trial court erroneously dismissed the perfected appeal upon ITT’s motion, mandamus was the proper remedy to compel the performance of that ministerial duty. The Supreme Court cited Section 15, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, which explicitly provides that when a motion to dismiss an appeal is erroneously granted, a petition for mandamus may be filed in the appellate court. The Court did not rule on the ultimate merits of Boiser’s claim for relief but on the correctness of the procedural remedy to restore his right to appeal.