Shioji v. Hon. Geo Harvey (Malcolm, 1922) Facts: 1. S.

Shioji filed an action against Toyo Kisen Kaisah and Pacific Mail Stemship Co. (Toyo) in CFI Manila. 2. Oct. 31, 1920 CFI Decided against defendants (J. Concepcion), joint and several P19,533.49 3. Defendants perfected appeal by Bill of Exceptions filed with the office of the clerk of the SC on Feb 16,1922 and received by parties the day after (Feb17). 4. Rule 21 Appellants have 30days from receipt to file briefs. Accordingly here it expired March 19. 5. Mar 22 (3days after expiry of pd.) Appellant (Shioji) filed a motion for additional period. 6. Mar 24 - SC denied and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule24(a). 7. 15 days later (April 22) decision became final and execution was issued. 8. However prior to the levy Toyo FILED: Action for prelim injunction in CFI (J. Harvey/defendant here) based primarily on: a. judgment of the SC is unconscionable and was rendered without due process of law, and that Rule24(a) under which the judgment was rendered is unconstitutional, and being in conflict with the law is null and void. b. J. Harvey issued the preliminary injunction 9. COUNTERMOVE: Shioji FILED a complaint in prohibition in SC, which SC immediately issued. Issue: 1. w/n action of J. Harvey in assuming jurisdiction to interpret and review the judgment of the SC and to obstruct execution thereof is proper. Improper 2. w/n Rule 24(a) of the SC is valid. Valid Decision: 1. It is not proper. A judge of the lower court cannot enforce different decrees than those rendered by the superior court. a. When a cause has been appealed from CFI to SC, and a judgment is rendered by the latter, no interference therewith by the lower court can be tolerated through any proceedings other than such as are directed by the appellate court. b. Sibbald v. US: The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. 2. Rule 24(a) is valid and not in conflict with any law of the US or of the Phil. a. Judiciary Act, 28: SC is empowered to make all necessary rules for orderly procedure in the SC in accordance with provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which rules shall be binding upon the several courts Included in the preceding regulations having to do with the filing of briefs.
i. ii. iii. Rule 21: Within 30days from receipt .. appellant shall serve on appellee errors and file 30copies with the clerk Rule 23: Rules for extension of time for filing of briefs must be presented before the expiration of the time mentioned in rules 21 and 22 Rule 24(a): If the appellant in any civil case, fails to serve his brief within the time prescribed..the court may, on motion of the appellee and notice to the appellant, or on its own motion, dismiss the bill of exceptions or the appeal.

b. These Rules must be observed. It is the duty of the court to enforce its rules to
the best of its judgment. Extensions are granted daily, 15days(1st extension), 10(2nd), 5(3rd) PREREQ motion presented before expiration of period to file. In full, 601days to prepare, in extraordinary cases/for good and sufficient reason this period may even be enlarged. c. Generally limited that it must not be in conflict with the laws of the US/Phil.
1

30days original, 15days 1st extension, 10 days 2nd, 5days 3rd.

d. J. Fisher (drafter of rules) principal change: the discouragement of dilatory tactics by imposing upon the moving party the duty of proceeding promptly under penalty of dismissal of appeal e. Salaveria v. Albindo: RoCdrafted with primary objective of expediting justice. f. Reason for the Rules: Otherwise, dispatch of business by courts would be impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without rules governing practice. g. Here however, Toyo (Respondents) point out no provision of a federal statute which bears on the issue (in conflict with Rule24(a)), and we know none. 3. It is our holding that Rule24(a) is valid. Not in conflict with any law of US/Phil. It is a rule that: a. Relates to a matter of practice and procedure over which the Legislative has not exercised its power. b. Does not operate to deprive a party of any statutory right. c. In harmony with judicial practice and essential to the existence of courts. d. Must be enforced according to the discretion of the court. 4. Note that respondents here have already had their day in court. WHEREFORE writ prayed for granted. Prelim Injunction made permanent. Execute CFI org judgment, Levy the properties of Toyo and Pacific. -Czarina Dee