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
 

   
September-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 190 September 26, 1964 - MARCOS MEDINA v. LORETO U. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-17405 September 26, 1964 - JOSE AGUDO, JR. v. JOSE R. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19132 September 26, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO CAÑADA

  • G.R. No. L-17069 September 28, 1964 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC. v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-18421 September 28, 1964 - TOMAS BESA v. JOSE CASTELLVI

  • G.R. No. L-18817 September 28, 1964 - ANTONIO G. TADY-Y v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-18865 September 28, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN S. ALANO

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-22626 September 28, 1964 - ALICE FOLEY VDA. DE MARCELO v. RAFAEL S. SISON

  • G.R. No. L-16252 September 29, 1964 - ROSARIO MAS v. ELISA DUMARA-OG

  • G.R. No. L-17097 September 29, 1964 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE COMPANY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-19159 September 29, 1964 - GLICERIA C. LIWANAG v. LUIS B. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-19391 September 29, 1964 - CECILIO DE LA CRUZ v. MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-19776 September 29, 1964 - BENJAMIN CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19957 September 29, 1964 - ELIAS AGUSTIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PANIQUI SUGAR MILLS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-20111 September 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO E. VARGAS

  • G.R. No. L-14888 September 30, 1964 - MERCEDES CLEMENTE v. JOVITO BONIFACIO

  • G.R. No. L-15418 September 30, 1964 - WEST LEYTE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. ADELAIDO SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-17029 September 30, 1964 - SAMUEL S. SHARRUF v. FRANK BUBLA

  • G.R. No. L-17194 September 30, 1964 - PRIMITIVO SATO v. SIMEON RALLOS

  • G.R. No. L-17960 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: SY CHHUT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18596 September 30, 1964 - ALVAREZ MALAGUIT v. FELIX ALIPIO

  • G.R. No. L-18674 September 30, 1964 - FLORENTINA CALMA v. JOSE MONTUYA

  • G.R. No. L-19107-09 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: LAO YAP HAN DIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19419 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: GAW CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19583 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ONG BON KOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. No. L-19709 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19778 September 30, 1964 - CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19830 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: PAUL TEH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20077 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PACOMIO

  • G.R. No. L-20103 September 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. CONCHITA VDA. DE CHAVEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20146 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO OPLADO

  • G.R. No. L-20150 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN DOCTOR y DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-20232 September 30, 1964 - MUNICIPALITY OF LA CARLOTA v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-22626   September 28, 1964 - ALICE FOLEY VDA. DE MARCELO v. RAFAEL S. SISON

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-22626. September 28, 1964.]

    ALICE FOLEY VDA. DE MARCELO, B. PERALTA, WILLIAM, RUTH and JANET PERALTA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUDGE RAFAEL S. SISON of Court of First Instance of Cam. Sur, Branch IV, ET AL., Respondents.

    Fortunato Jose, for Petitioners.

    Gregorio B. Turiano for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. APPEALS; RECORD ON APPEAL; DEFICIENCIES NOT REMEDIED CONSTITUTE GROUND FOR DENIAL OF APPEAL. — Where a record on appeal tendered to the Court of first Instance contained unremedied deficiencies consisting in that, at the very least, the caption did not set forth the full names of the parties to the suit nor was there an index attached to said record consisting of about 70 pages, it is held that these deficiencies constitute a violation of section 6 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court and warrant the lower court in rejecting said record on appeal.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF TRIAL COURT MOTU PROPRIO TO REJECT DEFICIENT RECORD ON APPEAL. — A trial court has the right motu proprio, despite any waiver by the winning party under section 7, Rule 41, to refuse approval of a record on appeal that did not conform to the Rules of Court.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J. B. L., J.:


    Petitioners above named pray for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Branch IV) to approve and certify their record of appeal in Case No. 5439 of said court.

    As disclosed by the record before us, the court below had, upon petitioners’ insistence, rendered judgment on the pleadings, dismissing their complaint and sentencing them to pay P6,500 damages and costs. Petitioners appealed and tendered a record of appeal that was objected to by the private respondents upon various grounds, specially because the record filed by petitioners did not specify in the caption the full names of all the parties, nor the dates when the various pleadings were filed in court. Neither did the proffered record contain any subject index, despite the fact that the same consisted of more than seventy typewritten pages.

    The court upheld the objections, and ordered the record of appeals amended accordingly. But although the record was amended and reamended, and the court granted petitioners three extensions of time for the purpose, still the objections of parties-defendants were not met, and the defects previously mentioned remained. Finally, the trial court rejected the tendered record of appeal and refused to approve or certify the same. Hence this petition.

    We see no merit in the application. It is admitted that, at the very least, the caption did not set forth the full names of the parties to the suit; neither was there an index attached to the record as tendered to the Court of First Instance. These deficiencies constitute a clear violation of section 6 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides inter alia the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 6. Record on appeal; form and contents thereof. — The full names of all the parties to the proceedings shall be stated in the caption of the record on appeal and it shall include the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken, . . . very record on appeal exceeding twenty (20) pages must contain a subject index."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is argued that when the amended record of appeal was filed in the court below, the defendants did not reiterate their objections within the ten (10) days allowed for the purpose by section 7 of Rule 41. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that defendants’ delay in objecting was a waiver, the fact remains that the court itself, acting motu proprio, had the right to refuse approval of a record that did not conform to the Rules of Court.

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the writ of mandamus herein applied for is denied, with costs against petitioners.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-22626   September 28, 1964 - ALICE FOLEY VDA. DE MARCELO v. RAFAEL S. SISON


    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