Shioji vs. Harvey

A Court of First Instance has no power to interpret, review, or obstruct the execution of a final judgment of the Supreme Court; its authority is limited to the ministerial execution of the mandate, and Rule 24(a) of the Supreme Court, permitting dismissal of an appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief within the prescribed period, is valid and not in conflict with law.

S. Shioji was the plaintiff in a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Toyo Kisen Kaisha and Pacific Mail Steamship Co. The Supreme Court's rule-making authority is derived from Section 28 of the Judiciary Act (No. 136) and Section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorize the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for orderly procedure and to regulate business in the Supreme Court and Courts of First Instance, binding unless in conflict with law. Rules 21, 23, and 24(a) of the Supreme Court govern the filing of appellant's briefs, motions for extension, and dismissal of appeals for failure to file a brief on time.

S. Shioji was the plaintiff in cause No. 19471 of the Court of First Instance of Manila against Toyo Kisen Kaisha and Pacific Mail Steamship Co. On October 31, 1920, Judge Concepcion, presiding in the second branch of the court, rendered judgment in favor of Shioji and against the defendants jointly and severally for P19,533.49, with legal interest and costs. The defendants appealed by bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court, and the case was docketed as R.G. No. 18592.

The bill of exceptions was filed in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court on February 16, 1922, while attorneys for the respective parties received copies on February 17, 1922. Under Rule 21 of the Supreme Court, the appellants had thirty days from receipt of the printed bill of exceptions within which to serve and file copies of their brief. That period expired on March 19, 1922, without an extension of time within which to present the brief. When, on March 22, the appellants filed a motion for an additional period, the court, on March 24, 1922, denied the motion because it was filed out of time and, pursuant to Rule 24(a), dismissed the appeal. Subsequent orders on motions for reconsideration reaffirmed the dismissal and noted the exception of counsel.

After the regular fifteen-day period fixed by the March 24, 1922 order for the issuance of judgment and the return of the records to the lower court expired, on April 12, 1922, the records were transmitted to the Court of First Instance of Manila. Execution was then issued to enforce the judgment, but before the levy, the defendants in R.G. No. 18592 filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, docket No. 21905, based principally on the allegation that the judgment of the Supreme Court was unconscionable and was rendered without due process of law, and that Rule 24(a), under which the judgment was rendered, was unconstitutional and, being in conflict with law, null and void. They prayed that a preliminary injunction issue enjoining the respondents from levying any execution under the judgment and that after hearing the injunction be made perpetual. After Judge Concepcion signed an order for the transference of the case to the judge presiding in Branch III, Judge Harvey issued the preliminary injunction in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.

Shioji then filed a complaint in prohibition in the Supreme Court to compel Judge Harvey to desist from interfering with the execution of the judgment in cause No. 19471 and to issue an order revoking the injunction previously promulgated by him. The preliminary injunction prayed for as an incident to the complaint in prohibition was immediately issued by the Supreme Court and was complied with by the respondents. Counsel for petitioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, and a public hearing was held and the case argued.

• Interference with Supreme Court Judgment: Petitioner maintained that the Court of First Instance assumed jurisdiction to interpret and review the judgment and order of the Supreme Court and to obstruct the enforcement of the appellate court's decision; the lower court's only function when the Supreme Court's judgment is returned is the ministerial one of issuing the order of execution, and it has no supervisory jurisdiction to interpret or reverse the higher court's judgment.

• Validity of Rule 24(a): Respondents urged that Rule 24(a) is unconstitutional, null and void, and in conflict with law; they relied on Sections 2, 500, 502, and 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the rules must be in accordance with the Code and that the judgment was unconscionable and rendered without due process.
• Dismissal of Bills of Exceptions: Respondents specifically relied on Sections 500, 502, and 503, which speak of dismissal of bills of exceptions, and on Section 2 requiring liberal construction to promote speedy justice.

• Interference with Supreme Court Judgment: Whether the Court of First Instance may assume jurisdiction to interpret, review, or obstruct the enforcement of a final judgment and order of the Supreme Court by enjoining execution.
• Validity of Rule 24(a): Whether Rule 24(a) of the Supreme Court, authorizing dismissal of an appeal for failure to serve the appellant's brief within the prescribed time, is unconstitutional, null and void, or in conflict with the laws of the United States or the Philippine Islands.
• Due Process and Right to Appeal: Whether dismissal of an appeal under Rule 24(a) for failure to file the appellant's brief on time deprives the appellant of due process or a statutory right.

• Interference with Supreme Court Judgment: No. A lower court has no supervisory jurisdiction over the Supreme Court; its authority is limited to the ministerial execution of the mandate, and it cannot enforce different decrees or obstruct the judgment.
• Validity of Rule 24(a): Yes. Rule 24(a) is not in conflict with any law of the United States or the Philippines; it is a necessary rule for orderly procedure and regulating the conduct of business in the Supreme Court.
• Due Process and Right to Appeal: No. An appeal is neither an inherent right nor a necessary element of due process or law; Rule 24(a) does not deprive a party of any statutory right.

• Interference with Supreme Court Judgment: The lower court's only function when the Supreme Court's judgment is returned is ministerial issuance of execution. A judge of a lower court cannot enforce different decrees than those rendered by the superior court. If every Court of First Instance could overrule Supreme Court decisions, there would be no end to litigation and judicial chaos; appellate jurisdiction would be a farce if the Supreme Court could not prevent inferior courts from meddling with its decisions. Where a cause has been appealed and judgment rendered, no interference by the lower court can be tolerated through proceedings other than those directed by the appellate court. Until revoked by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands' decision must stand and be enforced. The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case and must carry it into execution according to the mandate; it cannot vary or examine it except for execution, give further relief, review it for error apparent, or intermeddle beyond what was remanded. The preliminary injunction was therefore justified. Although an attack on the validity of the Supreme Court's rules should not be initiated by collateral proceedings in a lower court, the Court waived that phase to rule on the point.
• Validity of Rule 24(a): Section 28 of the Judiciary Act (No. 136) authorizes the Supreme Court to make all necessary rules for orderly procedure in the Supreme Court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, binding upon the several courts. Section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure directs the judges of the Supreme Court to prepare rules regulating the conduct of business in the Supreme Court and Courts of First Instance; such rules are binding if not in conflict with the laws of the United States or the Philippines, and no judgment shall be reversed for failure to comply unless substantial rights are impaired. Rule 21 requires the appellant to serve and file a brief within 30 days from receipt of the printed record or bill of exceptions; Rule 23 requires motions for extension to be presented before expiration; Rule 24(a) provides that if the appellant in a civil case fails to serve the brief within the prescribed time, the court may, on motion or on its own motion, dismiss the bill of exceptions or the appeal. The word "may" confirms the discretionary power to dismiss for want of prosecution. The practice has been uniform: extensions are granted if timely, but if the brief is not filed within the 30-day period or a motion for extension is not filed before expiration, the case is removed from the calendar. Rule 24(a) is not in conflict with any law of the United States or the Philippines; it is a necessary rule for orderly procedure and regulating the conduct of business, relates to practice and procedure over which the Legislature has not exercised its power, does not deprive a party of a statutory right, is in harmony with judicial practice, and is essential to the existence of the courts. It must be enforced according to the discretion of the court. Sections 2, 500, 502, and 503 of the Code do not aid respondents: Section 2 concerns liberal construction; Sections 500, 502, and 503 speak of dismissal of bills of exceptions, but respondents had a good bill of exceptions and failed only in taking the next step seasonably. Independent of statute, every court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.
• Due Process and Right to Appeal: Any misgivings about the justice of the decision disappear because respondents already had a day in court; the presumption of the Code is in favor of the correctness of the lower court's judgment; an appeal is neither an inherent right nor a necessary element of due process or law; both bench and bar must be held to strict accountability for the speedy administration of justice; the stability of the judicial structure would be shaken if the appellate court permitted an inferior court to reverse its judgment; and for the Supreme Court to purge counsel of negligence and reinstate the cause would invite charges of favoritism and lead to never-ending confusion.

• Lower Court Has No Power to Interfere with Supreme Court Judgment — A Court of First Instance has no supervisory jurisdiction over the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court's judgment is returned to the lower court, the latter's function is ministerial: to issue execution according to the mandate. It cannot interpret, review, reverse, vary, or obstruct the judgment. The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case. Applied: Judge Harvey's injunction against execution was invalid, and prohibition was granted.
• Rules of Court Have the Force and Effect of Law — Rules promulgated by a court pursuant to statutory authority have the force and effect of law if not in conflict with positive law; they are subordinate to statute, and in case of conflict the statute prevails. Applied: Rule 24(a) was upheld under Section 28 of the Judiciary Act and Section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Inherent Power of Courts to Regulate Practice and Procedure — Independent of statutory provision, every court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction. Applied: The Supreme Court could enforce Rule 24(a) even apart from statute.
• Appeal Is Not an Inherent Right Nor a Necessary Element of Due Process — The right to appeal is not inherent and is not a necessary element of due process or law. Applied: Dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief on time did not violate due process.
• Discretionary Dismissal for Failure to File Appellant's Brief — Rule 24(a) uses "may," confirming the court's discretionary power to dismiss a civil appeal when the appellant fails to serve the brief within the prescribed time. Applied: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the motion for extension was filed after the 30-day period had expired.

• "A judge of a lower court cannot enforce different decrees than those rendered by the superior court. If each and every Court of First Instance could enjoy the privilege of overruling decisions of the Supreme Court, there would be no end to litigation, and judicial chaos would result." — This passage states the core rationale for prohibiting lower-court interference with Supreme Court judgments.
• "The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. They cannot vary its, or examine it for any other purpose than execution, or give any other or further relief, or review it upon any matter decided on appeal for error apparent, or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded." — Quoting Sibbald vs. United States, this defines the law-of-the-case rule and the ministerial duty of the lower court.
• "It is our holding that Rule 24 (a) is not in conflict with any law of the United States or of the Philippines, but is a necessary rule for orderly procedure and for regulating the conduct of business in Supreme Court." — This is the Court's holding upholding the validity of Rule 24(a).
• "Independent of any statutory provision, we assert that every court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction." — This states the inherent rule-making and administrative power of courts.

• Sibbald vs. United States, 12 Pet. 488 (1838) — Cited as controlling authority that an inferior court is bound by the appellate decree as the law of the case and may not vary or examine it except for execution.
• Ex parte Dubuque & Pacific Railroad, 1 Wall. 69 (1864) — Cited for the rule that a district court has no power to set aside a Supreme Court judgment; its authority extends only to executing the mandate.
• Paterno vs. City of Manila, 17 Phil. 26 (1910) — Cited to uphold the validity of Supreme Court rules and to dismiss an appeal; the rules are the laws of the court and must be obeyed until repealed unless shown to conflict with law.
• Salaveria vs. Albindo, 30 Phil. 922 (1919) — Cited for the principle that the Supreme Court's rules were drafted to expedite justice and that failure to follow them causes the appeal to disappear.
• Inchausti & Co. vs. De Leon, 24 Phil. 224 (1913) — Cited for the rule that rules of court promulgated by authority of law have the force and effect of law if not in conflict with positive law.
• Wayman vs. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 (1825) — Cited for the broad power of courts over matters of practice when authorized by law.
• U.S. vs. Fremont, 18 How. 30 (1855) — Cited as an example of dismissal of an appeal for failure to file the record within the time prescribed by the rules.
• McRae vs. Preston, 54 Fla. 188 (1907) — Cited as an example of a court refusing to entertain a motion filed after the time limited by rule.
• State ex rel. vs. Superior Court, 8 Wash. 591 (1894); State ex rel. Heirs of Gee vs. Drew and Thompson, 38 La. Ann. 274 (1886); In re Alexander, 127 La. 854 (1911) — Cited as further examples of lower courts being without power to interfere with appellate mandates.

• Section 28, Judiciary Act (No. 136) — Grants the Supreme Court power to make all necessary rules for orderly procedure in the Supreme Court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, binding upon the several courts. Applied to uphold Rule 24(a).
• Section 6, Code of Civil Procedure — Directs the judges of the Supreme Court to prepare rules regulating the conduct of business in the Supreme Court and Courts of First Instance; rules are uniform and binding if not in conflict with the laws of the United States or the Philippines; no judgment shall be reversed for failure to comply unless substantial rights are impaired. Applied: Rule 24(a) was not in conflict with law, and the Court was affirming rather than reversing a judgment.
• Sections 2, 500, 502, and 503, Code of Civil Procedure — Respondents relied on these provisions. Section 2 requires liberal construction to promote speedy justice; Sections 500, 502, and 503 speak of dismissal of bills of exceptions. The Court found no direct applicability because respondents had a good bill of exceptions; their failure was in not seasonably filing the appellant's brief.
• Rules 21, 22, 23, and 24(a), Supreme Court — Rule 21 requires the appellant to serve and file a brief within 30 days from receipt of the printed record or bill of exceptions; Rule 22 sets a similar period for the appellee; Rule 23 requires motions for extension to be presented before expiration; Rule 24(a) allows dismissal of a civil appeal if the appellant fails to serve the brief within the prescribed time. Applied: The appeal was properly dismissed because the motion for extension was filed after the 30-day period expired.
• Rule 5, Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States — Rule 24(a) is similar to Rule 5 under "Briefs" of the United States Supreme Court Rules, confirming the discretionary power to dismiss for want of prosecution.