G.R. No. L-9720; March 26, 1915
TRINIDAD CARRANCEJA, petitioner, vs. P.M. MOIR, judge of First Instance of Ambos Camarines, and ONG-SACO, respondents.

FACTS:
A summary action for possession of land was filed in the justice’s court of Daet, Ambos Camarines. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Trinidad Carranceja. The defendant, Ong-Saco, appealed to the Court of First Instance, filing the requisite bond and deposit. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant failed to pay the monthly rent for November as required by the judgment and by Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal based on this failure. At the hearing on the motion, after the statutory period for payment had expired, the appellant paid the November rent into court. The Court of First Instance, considering this late payment, denied the motion to dismiss. The petitioner then filed this original action for a writ of mandamus to compel the dismissal of the appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance, upon proof of the appellant’s failure to pay the monthly rent during the pendency of the appeal within the time prescribed by law, has a ministerial duty to dismiss the appeal, or whether it retains discretion to accept a late payment and allow the appeal to continue.

RULING:
The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus. The duty of the Court of First Instance to dismiss the appeal under Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure is ministerial and mandatory, not discretionary. The law provides that if the defendant fails to make the prescribed payments during the appeal, the court, upon motion and proof of such failure, “shall forthwith dismiss the appeal.” Since it was undisputed that the appellant failed to pay the rent for November within the first ten days of December, and the payment was only made after the motion to dismiss was filed and heard, the appellate court had no authority to exercise judgment or discretion. Its only lawful course was to dismiss the appeal. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of this purely ministerial duty.

The Court distinguished this case from prior rulings (Requepo v. Judge of First Instance of Ilocos Sur and Tirangbuaya v. Judge of First Instance of Rizal). In those cases, the issues pertained to defects in the appeal bond filed in the justice’s court, over which the Court of First Instance could exercise discretion to allow amendment, as there was at least a partial attempt to comply. Here, there was a complete failure to perform a continuing statutory obligation (timely rent payment) during the appeal’s pendency, triggering an absolute duty to dismiss. Allowing a late payment after a motion to dismiss would defeat the law’s purpose to prevent delay and protect the appellee from unnecessary expense.