G.R. No. L-5282; May 29, 1953
GERONIMO DE LOS REYES, petitioner-appellee, vs. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, in his capacity as Justice of the Peace of the Municipality of Calauan, Province of Laguna and MARIA B. CASTRO, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Maria B. Castro filed an action for unlawful detainer against Geronimo de los Reyes in the Justice of the Peace Court of Calauan, Laguna (Civil Case No. 3). The court rendered judgment on October 12, 1949, ordering de los Reyes to vacate the property and pay rentals and attorney’s fees. De los Reyes received a copy of the decision on October 15, 1949. On October 27, 1949, he filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on November 10, 1949, with notice received on November 15, 1949. On November 16, 1949 (the thirteenth day from receipt of the decision), de los Reyes filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction to suspend the period of appeal and prohibit the justice of the peace from executing the judgment. The Supreme Court granted the writ on November 22, 1949, and it was issued on November 24, 1949. On October 13, 1950, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. After the denial of his motions for reconsideration, de los Reyes, on November 16, 1950, filed a notice of appeal with the justice of the peace court and deposited the required docket fees and appeal bond. Maria B. Castro moved for immediate execution, claiming the judgment had become final. The justice of the peace disallowed the appeal as filed out of time and granted the motion for execution. De los Reyes then filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, which granted the petition, directing the justice of the peace to give due course to the appeal. Respondents appealed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the judgment rendered by the Justice of the Peace Court had become final and executory due to the alleged failure of Geronimo de los Reyes to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, holding that the notice of appeal was filed in due time and the judgment had not become final and executory. The Court ruled that the filing of the petition for certiorari, coupled with the grant of a writ of preliminary injunction that included a prayer to suspend the period to appeal, had the effect of interrupting the running of the reglementary period. Although the writ issued by the Clerk of Court did not explicitly mention the suspension of the appeal period, the directive to enjoin the justice of the peace from further proceedings logically included preventing action on any appeal. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo, and granting it retroactive effect serves that purpose. Since the petition for certiorari was filed before the expiration of the appeal period, the appeal filed after the Supreme Court’s final resolution was within the reglementary period.