ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2612   April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA<br /><br />083 Phil 438

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2612. April 27, 1949.]

    RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA ET AL., Respondents.

    Lorenzo B. Vizconde, Vicente S. Ocol and Cireneo A. Punzalan for Petitioner.

    Juan S. Rustia for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    APPEAL; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO FILE APPEAL BOND. — The petitioner here is not guilty of unreasonable delay. If the intervenor and appellee did not oppose the approval of the record on appeal in the court below, it was because of the belief that all the legal requirements had been fulfilled. The counsel for the appellant himself helped to lull the counsel for the intervenor and appellee into this belief; the former had asked for an extension of 30 days to file the record on appeal and an appeal bond thereby implying that such bond was forthcoming. When they discovered the omission, they lost no time in taking steps to have the appeal dismissed by the Court of First Instance, and when that motion was denied because, according to that court, the record had been transmitted to the Court of Appeals and it had lost jurisdiction over the case, the motion was, without unnecessary delay, reiterated in the appellate court.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    This proceeding relates to the refusal of the Court of Appeals to dismiss respondent’s appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Laguna. The ground of the motion to dismiss was that no appeal bond had been filed before the record on appeal was approved.

    All are agreed that appeal bond is essential to the perfection of an appeal. That such bond was not submitted up to the time the record on appeal was approved is attested by the record.

    The reasons for the Court of Appeals’ order denying the motion to dismiss are not stated. It appears from the statements of counsel in the course of the oral argument that the Court of Appeals relied on the case of Santiago v. Valenzuela (78 Phil., 397).

    There is little or no analogy between that case and the case at bar. In the case cited, the appellee not only failed to object to the approval of the record on appeal in the Court of First Instance but he moved the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal only after the appellants had presented their brief.

    The petitioner here is not guilty of unreasonable delay. If the intervenor and appellee did not oppose the approval of the record on appeal in the court below, it was because of the belief that all the legal requirements had been fulfilled. The counsel for the appellant himself helped to lull the counsel for the intervenor and appellee into this belief; the former had asked for an extension of 30 days to file the record on appeal and an appeal bond thereby implying that such bond was forthcoming. When they discovered the omission, appellee’s counsel lost no time in taking steps to have the appeal dismissed by the Court of First Instance, and when that motion was denied because, according to that court, the record had been transmitted to the Court of Appeals and it had lost jurisdiction over the case, the motion was, without unnecessary delay, reiterated in the appellate court.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Bengzon, J., concurs in the result.

    Separate Opinions


    PERFECTO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We dissent.

    There is not enough ground to reverse the action of the Court of Appeals.

    Failure to file an appeal bond can be corrected and in the present case correction will not do any harm to any party.

    The right to appeal must not be defeated by a mere procedural technicality.

    The administration of justice must not be made futile by resort to technical matter of form that do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

    G.R. No. L-2612   April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA<br /><br />083 Phil 438


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED