Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > July 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19360 July 26, 1963 - SILVESTRA DEYMOS VDA. DE OYZON v. DEMETRIO G. VINZON:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19360. July 26, 1963.]

SILVESTRA DEYMOS VDA. DE OYZON, Petitioner, v. HON. DEMETRIO G. VINZON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Carigara, Leyte and CATALINO PANAO, Respondents.

Porfirio C. Altres and Jesus Velasco for Petitioner.

B. Cuesta & Villamor for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEALS; PERFECTION OF APPEAL; WHEN AMENDED RECORD ON APPEAL IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FILED. — The order of respondent Court stating that the record on appeal as amended will be approved ipso facto after certain pleadings and documents have been incorporated therein, simply means that the incorporation of said pleadings and documents should be made within a reasonable time. Compliance with said order within 14 days is reasonable. The fact that the amended record on appeal was submitted after the reglementary 30-day period, did not render the perfection thereof untimely, because the amended record on appeal is deemed to have been filed on the presentation of the original, which was done within the reglementary period.


D E C I S I O N


PAREDES, J.:


On July 30, 1960, petitioner herein filed with the CFI of Carigara, Leyte, Civil Case No. 635, for Annulment of Contract, Recovery of Property and Damages against respondent Catalino Panao. After trial on the merits, the lower court on September 26, 1961, rendered judgment against petitioner. Copy of the decision was received by petitioner on October 4, 1961 and on October 18, 1961, a Notice of Appeal, Appeal Bond and Record on Appeal were filed with respondent Court.

Approval of the Record on Appeal was set for October 21, 1961, in the hearing of which, the disputed document was ordered to be included in the Record of Appeal. Respondent Court gave petitioner until October 28, 1961, to incorporate said document, at the same time setting the hearing on the same date. On October 23, 1961, petitioner complied with the order of respondent Court and prayed for the approval of the record on appeal. At the hearing held on October 28, 1961, respondent Panao, again objected, claiming that the Motion for Ocular Inspection, the Ocular Inspection Report, Sketch-plan by the Commissioner and the Approval of the Commissioner’s Report, should likewise be included in the Record on Appeal. The respondent Court issued the following Order —

"As manifested by the attorney for the plaintiff, the record on appeal does not contain all the proceedings had in the case. The Court deems it very necessary that they be incorporated in the said record on appeal. After compliance thereof, the same will be approve ipso facto."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above order was complied with on November 11, 1961 (within 14 days) when petitioner filed his Amended Record on Appeal, wherein the pleadings last mentioned were incorporated. On November 28, 1961, petitioner was furnished on Order of respondent court, dated November 18, 1961, stating —

"The Court, after a careful consideration of the petitioner and the opposition thereto, finds and sustains that the record on appeal was not perfected within thirty days and that the Court can not allow, in the use of its discretion, a further time as the said provisions is mandatory.

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court denies the motion to approve the amended record on appeal for not being meritorious."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner moved to reconsider the above Order, claiming that the appeal had been perfected with the submission of the original record on appeal (Citing Olvido and Albaniel, v. Ferrares & Judges, CFI Negros Occidental, G.R. No. 4276, Dec. 17, 1951; Vda. de Jizon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 8454, April 13, 1956). On December 2, 1961, day of the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, counsel for respondent Panao, served upon petitioner on opposition thereto, stating —

"As she did not file a motion to set aside the decision which is equivalent to motion for reconsideration or for new trial, the running of the period for perfecting on appeal had not been suspended and, being not suspended, the decision became final and executory on November 4, 1951. (Sec. 3, Rule 41, Rules of Court). The filing of the amended record on appeal on November 11, 196l was, obviously, out of time and the Court has no more jurisdiction over the same.

It is relevant to point out here the alleged record on appeal plaintiff’s filed on October 18, 1961, 14 days from October 4, 1951 when she received notice of the decision, and which she could not perfect within 30 days was not a record on appeal at all for it lacked the following matters:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


In the light of the above law, plaintiff’s record on appeal filed on October 18, 1961 being not in conformity herewith, is not a record on appeal at all but a mere scrap of paper. Even assuming that the record on appeal (amended), which she filed on November 11, 1961 was a legal record on appeal, the same cannot be given due course for having been filed outside of the reglementary period and the court has no more jurisdiction over the case, except to order a writ of execution, the decision having become final and executory."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the same day, respondent Judge denied the motion for reconsideration, for "not being meritorious." Claiming, that respondent judge, in not approving the record on appeal as amended, and denying the motion for reconsideration, had gravely abused his discretion and unlawfully neglected to perform a duty enjoined by law and/or has unlawfully excluded the petitioner from the use and enjoyment of a right to which was entitled and from which there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, said petitioner filed the instant action, to compel the respondent judge to approve her record on appeal and give due course to her appeal.

This Court gave due course to the petition on January 18, 1962 and issued a preliminary writ of injunction.

The singular issue thus presented is — was the appeal perfected on time? It will be noted that the last order of the respondent Court, directing petitioner to include the pleadings, which respondent Panao wanted incorporated therein, did not contain any period within which to comply. It merely stated that the record on appeal as amended will be approved ipso facto after compliance thereof, which simply means that the incorporation of the pleadings should be made within a reasonable time. We believe that the compliance of the last order of respondent Court within 14 days, was done within a reasonable time. The fact that the amended record on appeal was submitted after the reglementary 30 day period, did not render the perfection thereof untimely, because the amended record on appeal is deemed to have been filed on the presentation of the original, which was done within the reglementary period.

"Amendments in pleadings do not necessarily expunge those previously filed Amendments made, more so when ordered by the court, relate back to the date of the original complaint, if, as in the case at bar the claim asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence. Amendment presupposes the existence of something to be amended and, therefore, the tolling of the period should relate back to the filing of the pleading sought to be amended . . ." (Phil. Ind. Church, etc. v. Juana Mateo and I.G. Ilaño, G. R. No. L-14793, April 28, 1961.)

WHEREFORE, the Writ is granted as prayed for, the orders denying the approval of the amended record on appeal and the motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside, and respondent Judge is ordered to approve the amended record on appeal and give due course to petitioner’s appeal. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued, is made permanent. Without costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16682 July 26, 1963 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19360 July 26, 1963 - SILVESTRA DEYMOS VDA. DE OYZON v. DEMETRIO G. VINZON

  • A.C. No. 204 July 31, 1963 - PATRICIO SALAMANCA v. FELICIANO R. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-13365 July 31, 1963 - SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LA LOMA CATHOLIC CEMETERY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. Nos. L-14030-31 July 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO GONGORA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-14883 July 31, 1963 - NARCISA BUENCAMINO, ET AL., v. C. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-15133 July 31, 1953

    EMIGDIO SORIANO, ET AL., v. HEIRS OF DOMINGO MAGALI

  • G.R. No. L-15378 July 31, 1963 - ERNESTO SALAZAR v. FLOR DE LIS MENESES, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-16054 July 31, 1963 - ROMAN TOLEDO, ET AL., v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17085 July 31, 1963 - LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY v. LUZON LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-16691 July 31, 1963 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RAMCAR, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16860 July 31, 1963 - ISHAR SINGH v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-17105 July 31, 1963 - POLICARPIO GEGANTO v. QUINTIN KATALBAS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17117 July 31, 1963 - ADELA SANTOS GUTIERREZ v. JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17285 July 31, 1963 - EDUARDO ELCHICO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17299 July 31, 1963 - JOSEFINA POTESTAS CABRERA, ET AL., v. MARIANO T. TIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17454 July 31, 1963 - CORNELIO ARROJO v. WENCESLAO CALDOZA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17468 July 31, 1963 - PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17578 July 31, 1963 - MANILA METAL CAPS AND TIN CANS MFG. CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17600 July 31, 1963 - BIG FIVE PRODUCTS WORKERS UNION-CLP v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17649 July 31, 1963 - ESTEBAN TAWATAO, ET AL., v. EUGENIO GARCIA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17715 July 31, 1963 - JOSE AVELINO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17717 July 31, 1963 - UBALDO BARON, ET AL., v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17944 July 31, 1968

    MARTIN SAVELLANO v. PELAGIA M. DIAZ , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18135 July 31, 1963 - BASILIO S. FALCON v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-18181 July 31, 1963 - ILUMINADA DE GALA-SISON v. SOCORRO MANALO

  • G.R. No. L-18330 July 31, 1963 - JOSE DE BORJA v. VICENTE G. GELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18335 July 31, 1963 - SALUD LEDESMA v. ALBERTO REALUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-18353 July 31, 1963 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC. v. DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18422-23 July 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BORROMEO PAGULAYAN, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18528 July 31, 1963 - MARINDUQUE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-18572 July 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO IGNACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18663 July 31, 1963 - CARMEN D. DE CRUZ, ET AL., v. EMILIANA MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-18765 July 31, 1963 - ADRIANO D. DASALLA, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18998 July 31, 1963 - AMANDO LITAO v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED CIVIL EMPLOYEES

  • G.R. No. L-19000 July 31, 1963 - RUPERTO SANCHEZ v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-21274 July 31, 1963 - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS v. FELIX R. DOMINGO