G.R. No. L-5558 April 29, 1953
ENRIQUE D. MANABAT and RUFINA S. MANABAT, petitioners, vs. THE HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, Judge of First Instance of Tarlac, and ALEJANDRA L. DE ROXAS and CLAUDIO ROXAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Enrique D. Manabat and Rufina S. Manabat were sued on a promissory note in the justice of the peace court of Tarlac, Tarlac, by respondents Alejandra L. de Roxas and Claudio Roxas. The Manabats denied liability, alleging usury. They failed to appear and present evidence at the hearing, and a decision was rendered against them, ordering them to pay P1,261.74 plus interest. They were notified of this decision on September 7, 1951. On September 22, 1951, the Manabats sent by registered mail their notice of appeal, a postal money order for P16 as docket fees payable to the justice of the peace, and a surety bond for P30 as an appeal bond. These papers were actually received by the justice of the peace court on September 24, 1951. The appeal was docketed in the Court of First Instance as Civil Case No. 638. The Roxas spouses moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appeal documents were received two days after the expiration of the 15-day appeal period and that the appeal was frivolous and interposed for delay. The respondent Judge, Bernabe de Aquino, dismissed the appeal as late, holding that the 15-day period expired on September 22 and the papers were received on September 24. He refused to apply Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the date of mailing as shown by the post-office registry receipt is considered the date of filing, opining that this rule does not apply to inferior courts as it is not among those enumerated in Section 19, Rule 4 as applicable to them. The Manabats then filed this petition for mandamus to compel the judge to give due course to and hear their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal of the Manabats from the decision of the justice of the peace court was perfected within the 15-day period prescribed by law, which depends on whether the appeal papers are deemed filed on September 22, 1951 (the date of mailing by registered mail) or on September 24, 1951 (the date of actual receipt by the court).

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the issuance of the writ of mandamus. The Court ruled that the appeal was perfected on time. It held that Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, which considers the date of mailing by registered mail as the date of filing, is applicable to justice of the peace courts. The Court rejected the respondent judge’s application of the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius to Section 19, Rule 4, stating that the enumeration therein is not exclusive. The Court explained that undesirable consequences would follow if inferior courts could disregard other important rules not listed, such as those on evidence, costs, and parties. It cited previous cases where rules not enumerated in Section 19, Rule 4 were applied to inferior courts. The Court emphasized the desirability of uniformity in procedural rules to simplify procedure. Regarding the respondents’ additional objections, the Court held that the use of a postal money order constituted substantial compliance with the deposit requirement for docket fees, and that the allegation of usury warranted giving the petitioners their day in court. Costs were awarded against the Roxas spouses.