SHIOJI vs.

HARVEY (1922)
Facts:
In a previous case, judgment was rendered ordering defendants Toyo Kisen Kaisha & Pacific Mail
Steamship Co to jointly and severally pay plaintiff Shioji. Defendants Toyo & Pacific appealed by bill of
exceptions to the Supreme Court. Defendants however failed to present their brief or to file for
extension during the 30-day period within which they should have served and filed copies of their brief
under Rule 21. The Supreme Court, pursuant to Rule 24, then denied defendants motion for
additional period for being filed out of time. Subsequent motions for recon were likewise denied.
Execution was issued to enforce judgment but prior to the levy, defendants Toyo and Pacific filed and
action in the CFI of Manila claiming that the SCs decision was unconscionable and rendered without
due process, and that Rule 24 is unconstitutional for being in conflict with law. Judge Harvey,
respondent in this case, granted an injunction in accordance with Toyo & Pacifics complaint. Hence this
petition by Shioji to compel Judge Harvey to desist from interfering with the execution and revoking the
preliminary injunction.
Issue: 1. [Rule-Making] WON Rule 24 is a valid law
Held: Yes. Rule 24 is a necessary rule for orderly procedure
Ratio: The SC is expressly authorized by statute (the Judiciary Act) to make rules for the regulation of
its practice and the conduct of its business. The Rules of Court prescribing the time within which certain
acts must be done are absolutely indisprensable to the prevention of needles delays and to the orderly
and speedy discharge of business.
The Rules of Court have the force and effect of law, if not in conflict with positive law. The Sec 28 of
the Judiciary Law and Sec 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure constitute the legislative authority of the SC
of the Philippine Islands, granting the latter power to make necessary rules for orderly procedure in the
court, including regulations on preparation and filing of briefs. Respondents point out no provision of a
federal statute which the questioned rule comes in conflict with. Even if the respondents have a
perfectly good bill of exceptions, they failed to take the next step (filing within the specified period)
seasonably hence the decision favoring Shiojo must stand.
Rule 24 must be enforced according to the discretion of the court. Every court has inherent power to do
all things reasonably for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.
Issue 2: WON a lower court may interfere with a judgment of the Supreme Court
Held: NO
Ratio: When the judgment of a higher court is returned to a lower court, the only function of said lower
court is the ministerial one of issuing the order of execution. The lower court is without supervisory
jurisdiction to interpret or reverse judgment of the higher court. Until revoked by the SC of the US (note
that this case was decided in 1922), the decision of the SC of the Philippine Islands must stand.