Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > May 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954 - BASILIA CABRERA, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA BELEN, ET AL.

095 Phil 54:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5807. May 26, 1954.]

BASILIA CABRERA and RAMON DIOKNO, Petitioners, v. FLORENCIA BELEN and ALFONSO BUISER, Respondents.

Jose W. Diokno, for Petitioners.

Estanislao Fernandez for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND FAILURE TO MAKE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR; DISCUSSION OF MATTER AT LENGTH IN THE BRIEF. — Although the respondents did not make a specific assignment of error regarding the amount of damages, in the body of their brief they discussed at length and did assail the correctness of the trial courts finding in the matter. Said discussion warranted the appellate court to rule upon the point it being a substantial compliance with section 5 of Rule 53 of the rules of Court.

2. ID.; INTEREST ON JUDGMENT OF APPELLATE COURT. — Section 6 of judgment of the appellate court in proper cases, namely, in favor of a party who, as appellee, occupies only a defensive position in sustaining the appealed judgment. The concession of interest under the aforesaid Rule cannot be considered as a penalty for appealing, because this would attach a string to statutory privilege to appeal and would impose the presumption that the appellant is always acting in bad faith.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


This case originated in the Court of First Instance of Laguna as an action for "reinvindicacion", with the herein petitioners Basilia Cabrera and Ramon Diokno as plaintiffs, and Florencia Belen and Alfonso Buiser, herein respondents, as defendants. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the foregoing consideration, the court declares Atty. Ramon Diokno to be entitled to the property in question and, therefore, declares him to be so. Hence defendants are ordered to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiff, Atty. Ramon Diokno. The said plaintiff is entitled to damages of P900 per annum from July 1943 to the date of the finality of the decision, making the injunction issued permanent and perpetual, with costs against the defendants."cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which, on December 8, 1951, rendered a decision affirming the judgment a quo, with the sole modification that the amount of damages was reduced to P600 per annum. The petitioners moved for a reconsideration of this decision, contending (1) that the Court of Appeals could not reduce the amount of damages because the respondents did not assign the matter of damages as error, and (2) that it failed to award in favor of the petitioners the interest provided for in section 6, Rule 53, of the Rules of Court. Unsuccessful, the petitioners have come to this Court by way of certiorari, assigning the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. No habiendose incluido en la relacion de errores de los recurridos la cuestion de si estaba o no con arreglo a la prueba la adjudicacion de P900.00 anuales a favor de uno de los recurridos, el Honorable Tribunal de Apelaciones erro al revisar tal cuestion y reducir por tanto la cuantia de los daños."cralaw virtua1aw library

"II. El Honorable Tribunal de Apelaciones erro al ignorar las disposiciones sobre adjudicacion de intereses a la sentencia"

While it is true that in the Court of Appeals the respondents did not make a specific assignment of error regarding the amount of damages, in the body of their brief they discussed at length and did assail the correctness of the trial court’s finding on the matter. Said discussion of course warranted the appellate court to rule upon the point, because it substantially complied with section 5 of Rule 53, intended merely to compel the appellant to specify the questions which he wants to raise and be disposed of on his appeal. For a vague and "general statement leaves the court absolutely in the dark as to what to look for, and forces the court to struggle through the trial and records in an effort to pick out what is intended to be urged" (Moran’s Comment on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. I, p. 996). Upon the other hand a clear discussion regarding an error allegedly committed by the trial court accomplishes the purpose of a particular assignment of error. As said in the case of Santos v. Rivera (28 Phil. 515), . . . While not being set off by itself and labelled as an assignment of error, this statement makes the point as effectually if not as artistically," and." . . Although the brief of appellant is not a literal compliance with the rules of court, nor is it a work of art from a professional point of view, still we do not believe the departure from the prescribed practice has been so radical as to call for a dismissal of the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners’ second assignment of error, like the first, is not well taken. Section 6 of Rule 53, invoked by the petitioners, provides that "When the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals is upon an interest-bearing claim, it shall bear the same rate of interest; when upon a non-interest-bearing claim, it shall bear the legal rate of interest." In our opinion, this merely authorizes the granting of interest on the judgment of the appellate court in proper cases, namely, in favor of a party who has appealed and claimed and established his right to interest at the outset; certainly not in favor of a party who, as appellee, occupies only a defensive position in sustaining the appealed judgment. The concession of interest under section 6 of Rule 53 cannot be considered as a penalty for appealing, because this would attach a string to the statutory privilege to appeal and would impose the presumption that the appellant is always acting in bad faith. If petitioners’ contention were adopted, we shall have a situation where the appellants (respondents) were able to reduce the amount of damages awarded by the trial court against them (thus showing that the judgment a quo was at least partly erroneous), and yet they will be penalized for doing so by being ordered to pay interest on the judgment of the appellate court. At any rate for a frivolous appeal even treble cost may be assessed.

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioners.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6669 May 3, 1954 - PEDRO DAQUIS v. MAXIMO BUSTOS

    094 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-6736 May 4, 1954 - ISABEL GABRIEL, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    094 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. L-6220 May 7, 1954 - MARTINA QUIZANA v. GAUDENCIO REDUGERIO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. L-5773 May 10, 1954 - CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. FABIAN SOBERANO

    094 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-6538 May 10, 1954 - PABLO BURGUETE v. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, ET AL.

    094 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-5694 May 12, 1954 - PAMBUJAN SUR UNITED MINE WORKERS v. SAMAR MINING CO., INC.

    094 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-6666 May 12, 1954 - GORGONIO PANDES v. JOSE TEODORO SR., ET AL.

    094 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. L-6765 May 12, 1954 - FULGENCIO VEGA, ET AL. v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-4918 May 14, 1954 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LEON GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-5689 May 14, 1954 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. AURELIO MONTINOLA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-5900 May 14, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FRANCISCO

    094 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-5942 May 14, 1954 - R.F.C. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 984

  • G.R. No. L-6313 May 14, 1954 - ROYAL SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. CO

    094 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. L-6444 May 14, 1954 - MUN. OF CALOOCAN v. MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL.

    094 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-6572 May 14, 1954 - MAX CHAMORRO & CO. v. PHIL. READY-MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., ET AL.

    094 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-6792 May 14, 1954 - FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-6921 May 14, 1954 - EUGENIO CATILO v. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    094 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-6481 May 17, 1954 - JESUS GUIAO v. ALBINO L. FIGUEROA

    094 Phil 1018

  • G.R. No. L-7045 May 18, 1954 - BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-5378 May 24, 1954 - CO TIONG SA v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    095 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6408 May 24, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO CARULASDULASAN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-6522 May 24, 1954 - LUIS B. UVERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-6807 May 24, 1954 - JESUS SACRED HEART COLLEGE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    095 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6870 May 24, 1954 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    095 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-6988 May 24, 1954 - U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

    095 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-4817 May 26, 1954 - SILVESTRE M. PUNSALAN v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5682 May 26, 1954 - ANASTACIO N. ABAD v. CANDIDA CARGANILLO VDA. DE YANCE

    095 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954 - BASILIA CABRERA, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA BELEN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-5906 May 26, 1954 - ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO

    095 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-5953 May 26, 1954 - EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    095 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-6246 May 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RIPAS

    095 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-6260 May 26, 1954 - HERMOGENES TARUC v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO.

    095 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. L-6306 May 26, 1954 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

    095 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-6353 May 26, 1954 - DANIEL CABANGANGAN v. ROBERTO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-6463 May 26, 1954 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MARCIANO DE LA PAZ

    095 Phil 90

  • G.R. Nos. L-6675-81 May 26, 1954 - BIENVENIDO E. DOLLENTE v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    095 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-7024 May 26, 1954 - ROMAN TOLSA v. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS

    095 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-6462 May 28, 1954 - BELEN JOVE LAGRIMAS v. TITO LAGRIMAS

    095 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-6967 May 28, 1954 - JOSE PONCE DE LEON v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7042 May 28, 1954 - CLOTILDE MEJIA VDA. DE ALFAFARA v. PLACIDO MAPA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3663 May 31, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARIA VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-4510 May 31, 1954 - MARC DONNELLY & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-4633 May 31, 1954 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    095 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-5824 May 31, 1954 - PAZ PAREJA v. JULIO PAREJA

    095 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-5837 May 31, 1954 - CRISTOBAL BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    095 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-6018 May 31, 1954 - EMILIANO MORABE v. WILLIAM BROWN

    095 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-6122 May 31, 1954 - AURELIA DE LARA, ET AL. v. JACINTO AYROSO

    095 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-6461 May 31, 1954 - PILAR ARAULLO MACOY v. CARMEN VASQUEZ TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    095 Phil 192

  • G.R. Nos. L-7403 & L-7426 May 31, 1954 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 205