Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3026 April 27, 1906
MELCHOR BABASA, plaintiff,
vs.
PAUL W. LINEBARGER, judge of First Instance of Batangas, ET AL., defendants.
Agoncillo and Ilustre, for plaintiff.
Attorney-General Wilfley, for defendants.
TORRES, J.:
A complaint was filed by the provincial fiscal of Batangas with the Court of First Instance, charging Pedro Alvarez (alias Araro), with the crime of robbery in a band, with murder. The corresponding proceedings were instituted, the accused pleaded not guilty, and while the trial of the case was pending, the judge, acting in conformity with the fiscal, granted the request of the culprit that he be set at liberty, the accused was released from jail on the 27th of September, 1902, under a bond of 10,000 pesos executed by Melchor Babasa and Apolonio Belmonte, as appears at folio 17 of the record.
Nearly a year after his release from jail, the accused being summoned to appear at the trial which was to take place on the 15th of October, 1903, of his bondsmen, Babasa, requested that the trial be held over until the next session of court in January, 19004, but this request was denied by the court below in accord with the fiscal. It appears from the statement of the clerk of the court that the accused, Alvarez, did not appear in court on the said 15th of October, the day fixed for the trial, for which reason the judge, on that day and in conformity with the fiscal's petition, held the said bond to be in default and ordered its forfeiture, but said that if the accused or his counsel satisfactorily explained the absence of the former within the term of thirty days, the court might set aside the forfeiture of the bond under such terms as he might consider proper, if this condition were not complied with, the provincial fiscal was to take immediate proceedings against the bondsmen for the fulfillment of the obligation contracted by them. (Folio 22.)
By a writing dated the 14th of November following, the bondsmen, Babasa and Belmonte, prayed that the term of thirty days granted be extended to the next session of the court in January, 1904; to this the provincial fiscal objected and requested that a writ of execution be issued to the provincial sheriff, instructing him to recover the amount of the bond from the bondsmen, or to attach and sell their property, particularly that which specially pledged, in amount sufficient to cover the bond.
The court below granted the request of the fiscal and issued the writ of execution (folio 33) for the attachment and sale of the property of the bondsmen; the latter appealed from the said ruling (folio 46), and in view thereof the court below suspended the execution and allowed the appeal to this court.
This court, however, by resolution of the 10th of February, 1905, held that the appeal was wrongfully admitted and remanded the proceedings to the lower court for proper action.
Counsel for Melchor Babasa, one of the bondsmen, appealed to the Court of First Instance to have the bond canceled, but in view of the objection of the fiscal, the judge dismissed the petition on the 21st of October, 1905, ordered that the amount of the bond above referred to be collected, and issued the corresponding writ of execution. From said resolution Babasa appealed, but the judge below, by his order of November 6, dismissed the appeal. A copy of the proceedings has been submitted on the request of the Attorney-General.
The matter standing thus, Melchor Babasa, on the 23d of November, 1905, petitioned in writing for the issue of a writ of mandamus ordering the judge below, the Hon. Paul W. Linebarger, to admit the appeal that had been interposed and to forward to this court the record of the suspension of the effects of his judgment, sentencing him to pay the costs; to this end he alleged that he had presented the appeal in due course, but that the judge below has declined to admit it and forward the proceedings but the admission or refusal of an appeal is not within his power or discretion; that this is a ministerial act and one not prohibited by law; that his interests would greatly suffer and are suffering on account of the dismissal of the appeal and the execution on the bond, and he has no other remedy for the enforcement of his rights.
The Attorney-General, for himself and on behalf of the defendant judge, demurred to the above complaint on the ground that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action; that it was ambiguous, unintelligent, and vague, and that there was in it a misjoinder of parties defendant.
By resolution of the 15th of January of this year, the demurrer of the defendant judge was sustained on the ground that the complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain, and the plaintiff was given ten days to amend it; this he did in writing on the 26th of January and prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued ordering Judge Paul W. Linebarger to admit the appeal by him dismissed, to forward the proceedings to this court, meanwhile to suspend the effects of his judgment, and to pay the costs; he further prayed to be allowed any other remedy under the law.
In answer thereto the Attorney-General moved for the dismissal of the said complaint for the reason which he submitted, with the costs against the plaintiff.
Disregarding the nature of the action brought by the bondsman, Babasa, in requesting the cancellation of the bond furnished in a criminal proceeding, this decision will restrict itself to showing that said pretension was formulated in the action brought in the Court of First Instance of Batangas against Pedro Alvarez for the crime of robbery en cuadrilla with murder.
Inasmuch as the said petition to procure the cancellation of the bond was denied without further process of law, it is unquestionable that the order of court denying it could be appealed from, for the reason that of this last decision were not appealable, it would become final, without ulterior remedy, and would work irreparable injury to the petitioner.
Among other reasons, a writ of mandamus may be issued when an inferior tribunal unlawfully deprives the plaintiff of the exercise or enjoyment of a right. (Sec. 515, Code of Civil Procedure.)
Melchor Babasa was entitled to appeal from the order of the court by which, without further process of law, his request that the said bond be declared null was flatly denied; and by the disallowance of his appeal he was deprived of the exercise of a right; to the prejudice of his interests, and for this reason the remedy of mandamus is in accordance with the law, as would also have been a recurso de queja, had the same been interposed, for the appeal, which is of itself not appealable and could only be remedied by a recurso de queja.
The suspension of the effects of a judgment, as requested by the plaintiff, can not be granted under the law. Section 515 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize it, and it does not appear that the preliminary injunction provided by section 517 of the said code was interposed; therefore,
Let the corresponding writ of mandamus be issued directing the judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas to admit the appeal referred to by the plaintiff, if the same was interposed in due time, and to forward to this court the record of the proceedings in connection therewith. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
