Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15134 November 29, 1961
THE CITY OF MANILA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. HIGINO B. MACADAEG, Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, ANTONIO AVECILLA, LUCIO R. ILDEFONSO and PABLO V. GUTIERREZ, respondents.
Fiscal H. Concepcion, Jr. for petitioner.
Fernando M. Mangubat for respondents.
BENGZON, C.J.:
In a condemnation proceeding instituted in his court the City of Manila, the respondent judge appointed the other three respondents as commissioners to determine the value of the real estate in question. After discharging their duties properly and submitting their report, which became the basis of the main decision, said commissioners filed a motion for reasonable compensation at the rate of P100.00 per meeting. The City Fiscal opposed, calling attention to the Rules of Court which fix such compensation at P4.00 per day. After hearing the parties, the respondent judge, on June 10, 1958, fixed the commissioners' compensation at P25.00 per meeting.
Having failed to obtain a reconsideration, the City Fiscal filed this petition for certiorari, contending that the respondent judge had exceeded his jurisdiction and/or had abused his discretion in awarding to the commissioners a compensation much in excess of the four-peso-per-day fixed by Rule 130, sec. 13.1
Replying to this petition, the respondents contend that the Rules merely fixed a four-peso minimum2, leaving to the judge the discretion to fix a higher wage, depending upon the circumstances of the case. Anyway, they add, this petition from the order fixing such compensation; and having failed to appeal on time, the City may not now be permitted to use certiorari proceedings to obtain the revocation of the court's order that had become final — even at the time of the institution of this special civil action.
It is undeniable that this special civil action was filed here on March 2, 1959, more than thirty days after the City Fiscal had received (on January 8, 1959) the court's resolution denying his motion to reconsider. Therefore, this action attempts in effect to obtain a revision of the original order fixing the commissioners' compensation, after the city had lost the rightto appeal from it. We have heretofore repeatedly ruled against such attempts in the form of certiorari.
True, we have in some instances, entertained petitions to revoke some order or decision, even after the time to appeal had elapsed; but those were cases wherein the jurisdiction of the court had been exceeded. Here, there is no question that the court had power to fix and order the payment of the commissioners' fees. Granting he disregarded the limit fixed by the Rules, he merely erred; and such error should have been corrected by appeal in due time.
WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby denied.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, J., took no part.
Footnotes
1 Effective January 1960, this section has been amended to give commissioners P5.00 per day. Resolution-Supreme Court of October 3, 1959, published in 55 Off. Gaz. 7647.
2 Effective January 1960, this section has been amended to give commissioners P5.00 per day. Resolution-Supreme Court of October 3, 1959, published in 55 Off. Gaz. 7647.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
