GR L 4800; (July, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4800
POTENCIANO ARAGON, plaintiff, vs. THE HON. MANUEL, ARAULLO, as judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ET AL., defendants.
July 18, 1908
FACTS: In November 1906, Orden Tercera de San Francisco filed an action against Potenciano Aragon before the Justice of the Peace (JP) court of Manila to recover possession of a leased house and overdue rents. The JP court rendered judgment in favor of Orden Tercera, from which Aragon appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI).
While this appeal was pending in the CFI, Act No. 1627 of the Philippine Commission took effect on July 1, 1907. This Act, specifically Section 16, limited appeals from JP courts to only two instances (JP court to CFI), making CFI decisions in such cases unappealable to the Supreme Court. The CFI rendered its decision on Aragon’s appeal on February 7, 1908.
Aragon excepted to the CFI’s decision, moved for a new trial, and presented a bill of exceptions to further appeal. However, the CFI, by orders dated April 11 and April 27, 1908, overruled the appeal and refused to certify the bill of exceptions, citing Section 16 of Act No. 1627 , which rendered its decision unappealable. Aragon, as the plaintiff in this present case, challenged the CFI’s refusal to allow a third appeal.
ISSUE: Whether Act No. 1627 , which limits appeals from Justice of the Peace courts to two instances, applies to cases pending in the Court of First Instance at the time of its enactment, thereby precluding a third appeal to the Supreme Court.
RULING: Yes, Act No. 1627 applies to cases pending in the Court of First Instance at the time of its enactment, thereby precluding a third appeal.
The Supreme Court held that Act No. 1627 , being procedural in nature and containing no express provision to the contrary, is applicable to cases pending decision. The right to appeal from a judicial decision is a privilege established by positive laws, which define when and how such appeals may be made. Since the legal provision that authorized appeals to a third instance had been repealed by Act No. 1627 , which went into effect while Aragon’s appeal was pending in the CFI and before the CFI rendered its decision, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal that the law in force does not permit.
The Court emphasized that the purpose of Act No. 1627 was to generally limit the continuance of actions initiated in justice of the peace courts to two instances only, with certain exceptions not applicable to Aragon’s case. Therefore, the decision of the Court of First Instance, rendered on appeal from the Justice of the Peace court, was unappealable. The application of Potenciano Aragon was dismissed.