G.R. No. L-25519 - Republic of the Philippines vs. Igmedio Yap, et al.
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-25519 January 30, 1970
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
IGMEDIO YAP and HON. JUDGE CARLOS ABIERA of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental,respondents.
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo and Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz for petitioner.
M. O. Soriano and Associates for respondents.
MAKALINTAL,J.:
This is a petition forcertiorariandmandamus.
On March 19, 1965 the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental rendered its decision in Civil Case No. H-4834, granting the petition of herein respondent Igmedio Yap for naturalization as a Filipino citizen. The Provincial Fiscal of Negros Occidental received a copy of the decision on March 31, 1965; the Solicitor General received a copy on the following April 7. Upon instruction of the Solicitor General the Provincial Fiscal, thru his assistant, filed with the trial court a notice of appeal and the corresponding record on appeal on May 5, 1965. In an order dated September 1, 1965, the trial judge disapproved the same on the ground that the decision had become final, copy thereof having been received by the Provincial Fiscal on March 31, 1965. The Provincial Fiscal moved to reconsider but was turned down in another order of October 27, 1965. Thereupon, the Government filed the instant petition, praying among other things:
(a) That after hearing, judgment be rendered to declare both Orders of respondent judge dated September I and October 27, 1965 as illegal, null and void, as it was issued in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion;
(b) To order respondent judge Honorable Carlos Abiera who is presiding Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, to approve the "Record on Appeal" (Annex "B" hereof);
The only question here is whether the thirty-day period to appeal should be counted from notice of the decision to the Provincial Fiscal or to the Solicitor General.ℒαwρhi৷This question, and the arguments of herein respondents in support of their position, have already' been resolved by this ,Court. Thus in the case ofRepublic vs. Chiu,G.R. No. L-20846, Oct. 31, 1964, 12 SCRA 352, involving the same factual background as that of this case, it was held:
There is no question that the appearance of the City Attorney for the government, in the hearing, was authorized. This authorization, however, in the light of the foregoing provision of law,
As the Solicitor General received copy of the decision of the lower court on August 17, 1962, the period to appeal would have expired on September 16, 1962. The filing of the notice of appeal and record on appeal on September 4 and 6, 1962, respectively, were therefore made on time.
The remedy ofmandamuspursued by the Solicitor General is proper, the relief prayed for being to order respondent Judge to give due course to the appeal.
WHEREFORE,the writ is granted; the orders of respondent Court dated September 1 and October 27, 1965 are hereby set aside; and the said Court is directed to approve the record on appeal and certify the same to this Court. No pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Footnotes