GR L 38337; (August, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38337 August 25, 1983
JUAN MERINO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CIRILO ALARCON, respondents.
FACTS
Juan Merino filed an ejectment complaint against Cirilo Alarcon in the City Court of Manila. The case was appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), which tried it de novo and rendered a decision ordering Alarcon to vacate the premises. Alarcon filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal. The CFI judge initially approved the record on appeal but later, upon realizing the case originated from the city court, issued orders cancelling the approval. The judge held that under Republic Act No. 6031 , the CFI’s decision in such an appealed ejectment case was final and no longer appealable to the Court of Appeals, and thus granted Merino’s motion for execution.
Alarcon challenged these orders in the Court of Appeals, which set them aside. The appellate court revived the approval of the record on appeal, quashed the writ of execution, and directed the elevation of the records, effectively allowing the appeal. Merino then petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the CFI decision had become final and executory under RA 6031, which amended the Judiciary Act, and that no ordinary appeal was available.
ISSUE
Whether a decision of the Court of First Instance, rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over an ejectment case originally filed in a city court, is appealable to the Court of Appeals by means of an ordinary appeal (record on appeal).
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted Merino’s petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that under Section 45 of the Judiciary Act, as amended by RA 6031, decisions of Courts of First Instance in cases falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of municipal and city courts—such as ejectment cases—are declared final. The law provides a specific condition for this finality: that the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions are not clearly against the law. However, the proper remedy to challenge a breach of this condition is not an ordinary appeal.
The Court abandoned its previous ruling in Mota v. Court of Appeals and clarified that the legislative intent was to make such CFI decisions immediately final, subject only to a review via a petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals, not an ordinary appeal by record on appeal. A petition for review is a discretionary remedy that may be given due course only upon a prima facie showing of error. Consequently, Alarcon’s attempt to take an ordinary appeal via record on appeal was improper. The CFI judge correctly cancelled the approved record on appeal and ordered execution, as his decision had attained finality. The Court of Appeals erred in reviving the ordinary appeal.