G.R. No. L-6323 April 29, 1954
Basilia Coloma Vda. de Valdez, petitioner, vs. Constante L. Fariñas, et al., etc., respondents.

FACTS

On February 20, 1952, petitioner Basilia Coloma Vda. de Valdez filed an action against respondent Constante L. Fariñas in the justice of the peace court of Candon, Ilocos Sur. The case was set for hearing on March 10, 1952. On that date, defendant Fariñas did not appear, and the court declared him in default, rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff for P1,900 and P100 as attorney’s fees. On March 11, 1952, the court received two motions from the defendant dated March 6, 1952: one for postponement and another for dismissal. On March 14, 1952, defendant filed an undated motion to lift the order of default and set aside the judgment. The justice of the peace denied all three motions. On April 17, 1952, defendant appealed the judgment to the Court of First Instance. On June 5, 1952, defendant filed a motion in the Court of First Instance praying for a review of the justice of the peace court’s rulings on his three motions and, if reversed, for remand of the case. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss but reversed the judgment by default and remanded the case to the justice of the peace court for further proceedings. Petitioner filed this certiorari to annul that remand order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance, on appeal from a judgment by default rendered by a justice of the peace court after the plaintiff adduced evidence, correctly remanded the case to the inferior court for further proceedings instead of conducting a trial de novo.

RULING

No. The order of the Court of First Instance is reversed. The case is returned to the Court of First Instance for trial de novo. Under Section 9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from a justice of the peace court to the Court of First Instance perfects the Court of First Instance’s jurisdiction to try the case de novo as if it had been originally commenced there. The Court of First Instance’s jurisdiction is not limited to reviewing errors of law committed by the inferior court. The exception under Section 10, Rule 40, which allows a remand when the inferior court disposed of the case upon a question of law without a valid trial on the merits, is inapplicable. Here, a judgment by default was rendered after the plaintiff presented evidence, constituting a trial on the merits. Therefore, the Court of First Instance erred in reviewing the orders of the justice of the peace court and remanding the case. The appeal was duly perfected (defendant correctly appealed after his motion to set aside the default judgment was denied), and the case must stand in the Court of First Instance for trial de novo upon its merits. Costs are awarded against respondent Constante L. Fariñas.