G.R. No. L-49158; January 31, 1946
BASILIO DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MANILA, ARSENIO LOCSIN in his capacity as Judge of First Instance of Manila, and FELIPE DE SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

On March 3, 1943, respondent Felipe de Santos filed a complaint to eject petitioner Basilio de Castro from the premises at No. 1045 M. de Santos, Manila, and to collect rentals at P140 monthly from February 1943. The Municipal Court of Manila dismissed the complaint. Respondent Santos appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by respondent Judge Arsenio Locsin. While the case was pending decision, the parties were notified of a decision by the Mayor of Manila, rendered under Executive Order No. 117, fixing the rental for the premises at P100 a month. On September 28, 1943, petitioner filed a constancia with the court, informing it of the Mayor’s decision and attaching a copy. On September 30, 1943, respondent Judge rendered his decision, ordering petitioner to vacate the premises and pay a monthly rental of P140, ignoring the Mayor’s decision. Petitioner received a copy of this decision on October 6, 1943.
On November 2, 1943, petitioner gave notice of his intention to appeal, paid the appeal bond, and submitted his record on appeal for approval. Copy was sent to respondent Santos by registered mail. No opposition was filed within the five-day period under Rule 41, section 7 of the Rules of Court. Instead, the court set a hearing for December 18, 1943. At this hearing, respondent Santos for the first time opposed the approval of the record on appeal. Petitioner objected to this late opposition, but the objection was overruled. Based on this opposition, respondent Judge ordered the elimination of the constancia from the record on appeal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by an order dated January 11, 1944, which directed him to comply with the December 18 order within five days or have his appeal disapproved and declared abandoned.
On January 17, 1944, petitioner gave notice of his intention to file a petition for mandamus and requested suspension of all proceedings pending its outcome. The mandamus petition was docketed in the Court of Appeals as CA- G.R. No. 2 . On March 18, 1944, the Court of Appeals denied the petition. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on April 3, 1944, which was denied on April 4, 1944; notice of this denial was received by petitioner on April 10, 1944. The clerk of court had entered judgment on April 8, 1944. On April 10, 1944, petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was denied on April 18, 1944, on the ground that judgment had already been entered. On April 17, 1944, petitioner filed a notice of intention to file a petition for certiorari, and filed the petition itself the following day. The original record of the case was burned in February 1945 during the battle for Manila. The record was reconstituted by the parties, who stipulated that the statement of facts in the petitioner’s brief contained substantially all the facts of the case.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for mandamus, which sought to compel the Court of First Instance to include the constancia (informing the court of the Mayor’s rental decision) in the record on appeal and to approve said record.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The Court held that the order of the Court of First Instance, which directed the elimination of the constancia from the record on appeal, was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The constancia and the attached Mayor’s decision were not formally offered as evidence during the trial. Since they were not part of the evidence, they did not belong in the record on appeal, which should contain only the pleadings, proceedings, and evidence upon which the case was tried and decided. The Court found no abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge in issuing the order. Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not err in denying the writ of mandamus, as mandamus does not lie to control judicial discretion, but only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.