RepublicofthePhilippines

SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
DECISION
April27,1922
G.R.No.18940
SHIOJI,petitioner,
vs.
HonorableGEOR.HARVEY,JudgeofFirstInstanceofManila,PACIFICMAILSTEAMSHIP
CO.andTOYOKISENKAISHA,respondents.
Thos.D.Aitkenforpetitioner.
J.A.Wolfsonforrespondents.
Malcolm,J.:
Twoquestionsarepresentedfordecisionsinthisoriginalproceedingbyprohibition.Thefirstquestion,
pressedbypetitioner,relatedtotheinterferenceonthepartofthelowercourtwithajudgmentofthe
SupremeCourt.Thesecondquestion,urgedbyrespondents,relatestothevalidityofRule24(a)ofthe
SupremeCourt.While,inouropinion,aresolutionofthefirstpointisdecisiveofthecase,andany
discussionoftheotherpointhasnomorethanacademicinterest,yet,havinginmindthepositionsof
thecourt;whenoneofitsownerrulesisassailedasunconstitutional,nullandvoid,wehavedecided
togiveseriousconsiderationtobothquestions.
Inlogicalsequence,therefollowsastatementofthecaseandthefacts,anopiniononthetwopoints
abovestated,andthejudgment.
STATEMENTOFTHECASEANDTHEFACTS
IncauseNo.19471oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,whereinS.Shiojiwasplaintiff,andthe
ToyoKisenKaisahandthePacificMailSteamshipCo.,weredefendants,judgmentwasrenderedon
October31,1920,byJudgeConcepcionpresidinginthesecondbranchofthecourt,infavorofthe
plaintiffandagainstthedefendantsjointlyandseverallyforthesumofP19,533.49,withlegalinterest
andcosts.Thereafter,thedefendantsdulyperfectedanappealbywayofbillofexceptions,tothe
SupremeCourtofthePhilippineIslands,andthecasewasdocketedasR.G.No.18592.1Thedateon
whichthebillofexceptionswasfiledintheofficeoftheclerkoftheSupremeCourtwasFebruary16,
1922,whileattorneysfortherespectivepartiesreceivedcopiesofthesameonFebruary17,1922.
InaccordancewithRule21oftheSupremeCourt,theappellantshadthirtydaysfromthereceiptofthe
printedbillofexceptionswithinwhichtoserveandfilecopiesoftheirbrief.Thisperiodexpiredon
March19,1922,withoutanextensionoftimewithinwhichtopresentit.Accordingly,whenonMarch
22appellantsfiledamotionforanadditionalperiod,thecourt,onMarch24,1922,deniedthemotion
becauseitwasfiledoutoftime,andpursuanttoRule24(a)dismissedtheappeal.Subsequentorderof
thecourtonmotionsforreconsiderationhavereaffirmedtheorderofdismissal,andhavenotedthe
exceptionofcounsel.
Theregularfifteendayperiodfixedbytheorderofthecourt,ofMarch24,1922,fortheissuanceof
judgmentandthereturnoftherecordstothelowercourt,havingexpired,onApril12,1922,the
recordswastransmittedtotheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila.Executionwasthenissuedtoenforce
thejudgmentbutpriortothelevythedefendantsinthecaseR.G.No.18592,filedanactioninthe

CourtofFirstInstanceofManila,docketNo.21905,basedprincipallyontheallegationthatthe
judgmentoftheSupremeCourtisunconscionableandwasrenderedwithoutdueprocessoflaw,and
thattherule(Rule24[a])underwhichthejudgmentwasrendered,isunconstitutional,andbeingin
conflictwithlawisnullandvoid,inwhichtheyprayedthatapreliminaryinjunctionforthwithissue
enjoiningtherespondentsfromlevyinganyexecutionundertheaforesaidjudgmentandthatafter
hearingtheinjunctionbemadeperpetual.AfterjudgeConcepcionhadsingedandorderforthe
transferenceofthecasetothejudgepresidinginBranchIII,JudgeHarveyissuedthepreliminary
injunctioninaccordancewiththeprayerofthecomplaint.
ThecountermoveoftherespondentsintheinjunctionproceedingspendingtheCourtofFirstInstance
wastofileacomplaintinprohibitionintheSupremeCourt,tocompeltherespondentJudgeofFirst
InstancetodesistfrominterferingwiththeexecutionofthejudgmentincaseNo.19471oftheCourtof
FirstInstanceofManilaandtoissueanorderrevokingthepreviouslypromulgatedbyhim.The
preliminaryinjunctionprayedforasanincidenttothecomplaintinprohibitionwasimmediatelyissued
bytheSupremeCourt,andhasbeencompliedwithbytherespondentsherein.CounselPetitioner
hereinmovesforjudgmentonthepleadings.
Apublichearinghasbeenheldandthecasehasbeenarguedwithmarkedabilitybycounselforboth
parties.Theattorneyforrespondentswasinaparticularlydelicateposition,inthathemustattackthe
actionofthecourt,butitisonlyfairtosaythathehasmaintainedtowardthecourttherespectful
attitudewhichtheethicsofhisprofessionrequiresofhim.Wecannot,however,followcounselintothe
supercriticalmazesofhisargument,andmustperforceouropiniontothebigissues.
OPINION
I.Asintimatedinthebeginningofthisdecision,theprimaryquestionraisedbypetitionerconcernsthe
actionoftheJudgeofFirstInstanceinassumingthejurisdictiontointerpretandreviewjudgmentand
orderoftheSupremeCourt,andtoobstructtheenforcementofthedecisionsoftheappellatecourt.
Lengthyelucidationofthepropositionthatheonlyfunctionofalowercourt,whenthejudgmentofa
highcourtisreturnedtoits,istheministerialoneofissuingtheorderofexecution,andthatlowercourt
iswithoutsupervisoryjurisdictiontointerpretortoreversethejudgmentofthehighercourt,would
seemtobesuperfluous.Ajudgeofalowercourtcannotenforcedifferentdecreesthanthoserendered
bythesuperiorcourt.IfeachandeveryCourtofFirstInstancecouldenjoytheprivilegeofoverruling
decisionsoftheSupremeCourt,therewouldbenoendtolitigation,andjudicialchaoswouldresult.
AppellatejurisdictionwouldbeafarceiftheSupremeCourtdidnothavethepowerofpreventing
inferiorcourtsfrommeddlingwithdecisionswhensenttothemforcompliance.Whereacausehas
beenappealedfromtheCourtofFirstInstancetotheSupremeCourtofthePhilippineIslands,anda
judgmentrenderedbythelatter,nointerferencetherewithbythelowercourtcanbetoleratedthrough
anyproceedingsotherthansuchasaredirectedbytheappellatecourt.UntilrevokedbytheSupreme
CourtoftheUnitedStates,thedecisionoftheSupremeCourtofthePhilippineIslandsmuststandand
beenforced.
Theinferiorcourtisboundbythedecreeasthelawofthecase,andmustcarryitintoexecution
accordingtothemandate.Theycannotvaryits,orexamineitforanyotherpurposethanexecution,or
giveanyotherorfurtherrelief,orreviewituponanymatterdecidedonappealforerrorapparent,or
intermeddlewithit,furtherthantosettlesomuchashasbeenremanded.Thesearethewordsofthe
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesintheearlycaseofSibbaldvs.UnitedStates([1838],12Pet.,488).
Whenadistrictcourtattemptedtograntanewtrialsubsequenttothereturnofthemandateofthe
UnitedStatesSupremeCourt,thetritebutemphaticruleofthehighercourtwasthatThedistrictcourt
hadnopowertosetasidethejudgmentoftheSupremeCourt,itsauthorityextendingonlytoexecuting
themandate.(ExparteDubuque&PacificRailroad[1864],1Wall.,69See,further,Stateexrel.vs.
SuperiorCourt[1894]8Wash.,591;Stateex.rel.HeirsofGeevs.DrewandThompson[1886],38La.
Ann.,274;InreAlexander[1911],127La.,854.)

WhathasbeensaidisinjustificationofthepreliminaryinjunctionheretoforegrantedorderingJudgeof
FirstInstanceHarveytodesistfrominterferingwiththeexecutionofthejudgmentinthecaseofS.
Shiojivs.ToyoKisenKaisha,etal.,andrequiringhimtorevoketheinjunctionorderpreviouslyissued.
Weoughtproperlytostophere,becauseanattackonthevalidityoftherulesoftheSupremeCourt
shouldnotbeinitiatedbycollateralproceedingsinalowercourt,butasbeforeexplained,wewaive
thisphaseofthecasesoastodofulljusticethecomplainantandsoastomakeadefiniterulingonthe
pointwhichheraises.
II.TheSupremeCourtofthePhilippineIslandisexpresslyauthorizedbystatutetomakerulesfor
regulationofitspracticeandtheconductofitsbusiness.Section28oftheJudiciaryAct(No.136),
grantstothemembersoftheSupremeCourtthepowertomakeallnecessaryrulesfororderly
procedureinSupremeCourt...inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCodeofCivilProcedure,
whichrulesshallbe...bindingupontheseveralcourts.TheCodeofCivilProcedure,inturn,
providesinitssection6,asfollows:
ThejudgesoftheSupremeCourtshallpreparedrulesregulatingtheconductofbusinessinthe
SupremeCourtandintheCourtsofFirstInstance.TherulesshallbeuniformforallCourtsofFirst
InstancethroughouttheIslands.Suchrules,whendulymadeandpromulgatedandnotinconflictwith
thelawsoftheUnitedStatesorofthePhilippineIslands,shallbebindingandmustbeobserved,butno
judgementshallbereversedbyreasonofafailureofthecourttocomplywithsuchrulesunlessthe
substantialrightsofapartyhavebeenimpairedbysuchfailure.
TherulesoftheSupremeCourtofthePhilippines,draftedprincipallybyMr.JusticeWillard,were
promulgatedsoonaftertheorganizationofthecourtofAmericanoccupationofthePhilippines.
Amendmentsoftheruleswereannouncedfromtimetotime.In1981,aspecialcommitteeofthree
membersoftheSupremeCourtwasappointedbythecourt,tocompileandrevisetherulesofcourt,
andtheafterlongstudy,andafteranumberofpublichearings,acraftwaspresented,whichwas
adoptedbythecourtonOctober2,1918.Theseareruleswhich,withafewminoramendments,are
nowinforce.
TherulesoftheSupremeCourtandtherulesoftheCourtsofFirstInstancealikecontainprovisions
intendedtofacilitatetheprogressofjudicialbusiness.Ofthisnature,andofparticularinteresthere,are
rules21,22,23,and24oftheSupremecourt.Thefirstmentionedrule,21,providesinmandatory
languagethatWithinthirtydaysfromthereceiptoftheprintedrecordonappealorbillofexception
theappellantshallserveupontheappelleeerrorsandfilethirtycopiesthereofwiththeclerk.The
followingruleassignasimilarperiodoftimefortheservingandfilingofthebriefsoftheappelle.Rule
23,likewiseinmandatorylanguage,providesthatMotionsforextensionoftimeforfilingofbriefs
mustbepresentedbeforetheexpirationofthetimementionedinrules21and22,orwithinatimefixed
byspecialorderofthecourt.Nosuchextensionwillbeallowedexceptonnoticetotheoppositeparty
inaccordancewithRule13,andforgoodandsufficientcauseshown.Extensionsmayalsobegranted
uponstipulationofcounsel,withinreasonablelimits.Inreality,thiswastherulewhichappellants
failedtoobserve.ThencomesRule24(a)specificallychallengedintheseproceedings,readingas
follows:Iftheappellant,inanycivilcase,failstoservehisbriefwithinthetimeprescribedbythese
rulesthecourtmay,onmotionoftheappelleeandnoticetotheappellant,oronitsownmotion,
dismissthebillofexceptionsortheappeal.Thelaterrule,itmaybeobserved,bytheuseoftheword
may,andinlanguagequitesimilartoRule5,underBriefs,oftheRulesoftheSupremeCourtof
theUnitedStates,confirmsthediscretionarypowerofthecourttodismissactionsforwantof
prosecution.
Thepracticeofthecourtintheenforcementofitsruleshasbeenuniform.Thecourthasgoneuponthe
assumptionthatalthoughitretainsthepowerofamendment,nevertheless,itsisthedutyofthecourtto
enforceitsrules,tothebestifitsjudgment,irrespectiveofthecase,thepartiesorthecounsel.
Extensionsoftimeforthefilingofbriefsaredailygranted.Thefirstextensionordinarilyisforfifteen
days,thesecondfortendays,andthethirdforfivedays;butanunvaryingprerequisiteisthatmotions
bepresentedbeforetheexpirationoftheperiod.Thismeansthatattorneyscanhaveafullperiodof
sixtydaysforthepreparationoftheirbriefs,andinextraordinarycases,forgoodandsufficientreason,
eventhisperiodwillbeenlarged.Butifthebriefoftheappellantisnotfiledwithinthethirtyday

period,orifamotionforanextensionsoftimeisnotfiledbeforetheexpirationofthisperiod,then
suchcasesareremovedfromthecalendar,eitheronmotionofappelle,oronthecourtsownmotion.,
TheSupremeCourtis,ofcourse,primarilythebestjudgeofitsownrules.Itis,accordingly,ofinterest
tonotewhatthecourthasheretoforesaidoftherules.InPaternovs.CityofManila([1910],17Phil.,
26),rules19and20wereheldvalidandtheappealwasdismissed.Inthecourseofthedecision,Mr.
JusticeTrent,speakingforthecourt,saidthatThatrulesofthiscourtarefewandsimple.Theyarethe
lawsofthecourtandmustbeobeyeduntilrepealed,unlessitcanbeshownthattheyareinconflict
withthelawsoftheUnitedStatesorofthePhilippineIslands....Theserulesmeansomething,
otherwisetheywouldnothavebeenpromulgated.Mr.JusticeFisher,whodraftedthenewrulesofthe
SupremeCourt,insubmittingtherulesforconsideration,gaveasprincipalchange,the
discouragementofdilatorytacticsbyimposinguponthemovingpartythedutyofproceedingpromptly
underpenaltyofdismissaloftheappeal.InSalaveriavs.Albindo([1919],30Phil.,922),itwassaid:
TheRulesoftheSupremeCourtofthePhilippineIslandseffectiveafterthefirstdayofJanuary,
nineteenhundredandnineteen,weredraftedwiththeprimaryobjectofexpeditingjustice....Onthe
suppositionthattheSupremeCourtwas,asitisacourtofappeal,periodoftimewerefixedwithin
whichattorneysmustact,nottourgeonthesluggardandthedilatory.Ifcertainprovisionsoftherules
werenotfollowedautomaticallytheappealwoulddisappear.
TheinterpretationoftheRulesoftheSupremeCourtofthePhilippineIslandsisinsubstantialaccord
withtheinterpretationofcorrespondingrulesbytheothercourts.Rulesofcourtprescribingthetime
withinwhichcertainactsmustbedone,orcertainheldasabsolutelyindispensabletothepreventionof
needlessdelaysandtotheorderlyandspeedydischargeofbusiness.Thenumberofinstancesinwhich
courtshave,byrule,filledoutthetermsofthestatutescanberealizedonturningtotheencyclopedias.
Thereasonforrulesofthisnatureisbecausethedispatchofbusinessbycourtswouldbeimpossible,
andintolerabledelayswouldresults,withoutrulesgoverningpractice,anddesignedtoexpeditethe
transactionofbusiness.Suchrulesarenecessaryincidenttotheproper,efficientandorderlydischarge
ofjudicialfunctions.(See412A.S.R.,639,notes.)
Inotherjurisdictions,therehasbeennodoubtofthevalidityofsuchrules,andthatfailuretocomply
withthemmaydeprivetheappellantofhisrighttothejudgementoftheappellatecourt.Forexample,
wheretherecordwasnotfiledbytheappellantwithinthetimeprescribedbytheRulesoftheUnited
StatesSupremeCourt,andtheappelleefiledacopyofit,theappealwasdismisseduponhismotion(U.
S.vs.Fremont[1855],18How.,30.)Again,wherearuleoftheSupremeCourtofFloridalimitedthe
timetotendaysafterthereturndayofwritsoferror,withinwhichamotiontostriketherecordsora
partthereof,canbemade,andwhenamotionwasmadeafterthelapseofsuchlimitedtime,thecourt
heldthatitcouldnotentertainorconsiderit.(McRaevs.Preston[1907],54Fla.,188.
Rulesofcourt,promulgatedbyauthorityoflaw,havetheforceandeffectoflaw,ifnotinconflictwith
positivelaw.(Inchausti&Co.vs.DeLeon[1913],24Phil.,224.)Theruleissubordinatetothestatute,
and,incaseofconflict,thestatutewillprevail.AninstanceiswhereCongressexpresslyenabledthe
courtstomakeestablishallnecessaryrulesfortheorderlyconductofbusiness,providedsuchrules
werenotrepugnanttothelawsoftheUnitedStates,inthegreatcaseofWaymanvs.Southard([1825],
10Wheat.,1),madetheremarkthatthesesectiongivethecourtfullpoweroverallmattersof
practice....
Recurringnowtosection28oftheJudiciaryLaw,andsection6oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,which
constitutethelegislativeauthorityforthepromulgationofrulesbytheSupremeCourtofthePhilippine
Islands,itistobenoted,inthefirstplace,thatthecourtisgiventhepowertomakeallnecessaryrules
fororderlyprocedureinthecourt,andforregulatingtheconductofbusinessinthecourt.We
apprehendthatwithinthislanguagewouldbeincludedregulationshavingtodowiththepreparation
andfilingofbriefs.Thelawalsoprovidesthatsuchrulesshallbebindingandmustbeobserved.The
generallimitationis,thattherulesmustnotbeinconflictwithlawsoftheUnitedStatesorofthe
PhilippineIslands.Thespecificlimitationisthatnojudgmentshallbereversedbyreasonofthefailure

ofthecourttocomplywithsuchrules,unlessthesubstantialrightsofthepartyhavebeenimpairedbuy
suchfailure.
Asthespecificlimitationinsection6oftheCodeofCivilProcedureisnothereinquestion,sincethe
SupremeCourtisaffirmingandnotreversingajudgment,thewholecasecomesdowntoa
determinationofwhetherornotRule24(a)isinconflictwithanylawoftheUnitedStatesorofthe
PhilippineIslands.
Respondentspointoutnoprovisionofafederalstatutewhichbearsontheissue,andweknowofnone.
InadditiontoemphasizingthattherulespreparedbytheSupremeCourtshallbeinaccordancewith
theprovisionoftheCodeofCivilProcedure,counselspecificallyreliesonsections2,500,502and
503oftheCode.
Aportionofsection2oftheCodeofCivilProcedureisquotedbyrespondents,butweprefertoset
forththeentiresection.Itreads:TheprovisionsofthisCode,andtheproceedingsunderit,shallbe
liberallyconstrued,inordertopromoteitsobjectandassistthepartiesinobtainingspeedyjustice.We
canconceiveofnodirectapplicabilityofthisprovisionoflaw,unlessitbethatrulesofcourtshallbe
liberallyconstrued,andthattheconstructionshallbesuchastoassistthepartiesinobtainingspeedy
justice.Inreality,itwasthelatterpurposewhichthecourthadinmindwhenitlaiddowndefinite
periodforthefilingofbriefs,andheldboththepartiesandthecourttoacompliancetherewith.
Portionsofsections500,502and503oftheCodeofCivilProcedurearealsoquotedbyrespondents.
Butitwillbenoticedinthisconnection,thatthesevarioussectionsspeakofthedismissalofbillsof
exceptions.Thereisnosuchquestionbeforeus.Respondentsundoubtedlyhaveaperfectlygoodbillof
exceptions.Wheretheyfailedwasintakingthenextstepseasonably,withtheresultthatthejudgment
ofthetrialcourtstands.
ItisourholdingthatRule24(a)isnotinconflictwithanylawoftheUnitedStatesorofthe
Philippines,butisanecessaryrulefororderlyprocedureandforregulatingtheconductofbusinessin
SupremeCourt.Itisarulewhichrelatestoamatterofpracticeandprocedureoverwhichthe
Legislaturehasnotexerciseditspower.Itisarulewhichdoesnotoperatetodepriveapartyofany
statutoryright.ItisaruleinharmonywithjudicialpracticeandprocedureoverwhichtheLegislature
hasnotexerciseditspower.Itisarulewhichdoesnotoperatetodepriveapartyofanystatutoryright.
Itisaruleinharmonywithjudicialpracticeandprocedureandessentialtotheexistenceofthecourts.
And,finally,itisarulewhichmustbeenforcedaccordingtothediscretionofthecourt.
Independentofanystatutoryprovision,weassertthateverycourthasinherentpowertodoallthings
reasonablynecessaryfortheadministrationofjusticewithinthescopeofitsjurisdiction.
Anymisgivingsonemightentertainwiththereferencetothejusticeofthisdecisionmustdisappear
whenitbroughttomindthattherespondentshereinalreadyhavehadadayincourt;thatthe
presumptionoftheCodeonwhichtheyplacesomuchrelianceisalwaysinfavorofthecorrectnessof
thejudgmentofthelowercourt,thatanappealisneitheraninherentrightnoranecessaryelementof
dueprocessorlaw;thatbothbenchandbarmustbeheldtostrictaccountabilityforthespeedy
administrationofjustice;thatthestabilityofthewholejudicialstructurewouldbeshakenbythe
appellatecourtcomplacentlypermittinganinferiorcourttoreversethejudgmentoftheformer;and
thatfortheSupremeCourttopurgecounselofhisnegligenceandtoreinstatehiscausewouldbe
merelytoinvitechargesoffavoritismandwouldleadtoneverendingconfusion.
CounselfortherespondentsspeaksincidentallyofhisdesiretohavethevalidityoftheRulesofthe
SupremeCourtofthePhilippineIslandsandbytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.Althoughwe
areawareofnoconstitutionalquestioninvolved,inorderagaintogivecounselallthelatitudepossible,
wewillsaythat,onpropermotion,andonpresentationofasufficientsupersedeasbond,theinstant
proceedingswillbestayedinordertoallowcounsel,ifhedesire,totakethecasetotheSupremeCourt
oftheUnitedStates.

Incorroborationoftheforegoing,thewritprayedforisgranted,andthepreliminaryinjunctionismade
permanent.Withoutspecialfindingsastocosts,itissoordered.