Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > June 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-37630 June 19, 1975 - CATALINO LACIFICAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-37630. June 19, 1975.]

CATALINO LACIFICAR, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION, NOW FIRST DIVISION) PURIFICACION LOZADA and EUGENIANO LOREDO, JR., Respondents.

Jocon C. Espino for Petitioner.

Teofilo G. Leonidas, Jr. for Private Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


This is a petition to reconsider a resolution of respondent Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner’s appeal from a decision of a Court of Agrarian Relations on the ground that petitioner’s motion was not filed within the reglementary period as prescribed by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 5434. Respondent Court of Appeals based its resolution on the fact that the body of the notice of appeal did not contain the date of receipt of the decision appealed from. An examination, however, of the disputed pleading shows that the verification accompanying the notice of appeal did state the date, and that it was filed within the prescribed period.

The Supreme Court ruled that a statement of verification is a part of a notice of appeal and that petitioner therefore complied with the provisions of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 5434.

Writ granted, and respondent Court of Appeals ordered to give due course to petitioner’s appeal.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; NOTICE OF APPEAL; MATERIAL DATA RULE; VERIFICATION IS PART OF NOTICE OF APPEAL — The verification accompanying a notice of appeal is part of the notice of appeal.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; INCLUSION OF MATERIAL DATA IN THE VERIFICATION IS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE. — Even if the date of receipt of a decision appealed from is not stated in the body of the notice of appeal, a statement of such receipt in the verification accompanying the notice of appeal is sufficient to establish receipt of notice and should not be a cause to dismiss an appeal on the ground that it does not contain material data to show that it was perfected on time.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to compel the respondent Court of Appeals to reconsider its order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and to give due course to said appeal.

The petitioner is an agricultural tenant of private respondents Purificacion Lozada and Eugeniano Loredo, Jr. and the plaintiff in CAR Case No. 2153, Iloilo 1969, which he had filed against the said private respondents before the Court of Agrarian Relations, Branch I, Iloilo City. On August 23, 1972, the Court of Agrarian Relations rendered a decision in said case adverse to the petitioner and in favor of the respondent landowners. A copy of the decision was received by petitioner’s counsel on September 22, 1972. On September 26, 1972, the petitioner through his counsel, filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Agrarian Relations, making known his intention to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. 1 A similar notice of appeal, likewise dated September 25, 1972, was sent to the Court of Appeals by registered mail. 2

On November 21, 1972, the respondent Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for failure to pay the docket fee within the reglementary period. 3 The petitioner filed a motion dated December 15, 1972 seeking the reconsideration of the order of dismissal claiming that the trial court had allowed him to litigate as pauper and, consequently, exempt from paying the docket fee. 4 On April 2, 1973, the respondent Court of Appeals issued a resolution which reads, in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considering the motion, filed by counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, praying that the resolution of this Court dismissing the instant appeal for failure to pay docket fee within the reglementary period, be reconsidered on the ground that appellant was allowed to appeal as pauper litigant by the trial court, however, it appearing from the face of the notice of appeal, that the appeal was not perfected on time; the Court RESOLVED to CONSIDER the appeal in this case DISMISSED." 5

A motion to reconsider this resolution was filed by the petitioner 6 but was denied by the respondent Court. 7

The respondent Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s appeal "it appearing from the face of the notice of appeal, that the appeal was not perfected on time." This resolution is manifestly based upon the fact that the body of the notice of appeal filed by the petitioner does not contain a material date — the date when petitioner received a copy of the decision appealed from — to show that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period, as required by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 5434. An examination of the disputed pleading, however, will show that while the date of receipt of the decision appealed from is not stated in the body of the notice of appeal, a statement of such receipt is included in the verification 8 accompanying the notice of appeal. Inasmuch as the verification is a part of the notice of appeal, petitioner therefore did comply with the provisions of Section 3 of R.A. No. 5434.

Accordingly, the writ prayed for is granted, and the resolutions dismissing the appeal and denying the motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside. The respondent Court of Appeals is ordered to give due course to the petitioner’s appeal.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Aquino, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Annex "A", Rollo, p. 10.

2. CA Rollo, p. 1.

3. Idem, p. 3.

4. Idem, pp. 4-12.

5. Annex "B", Rollo, p. 11.

6. CA Rollo, pp. 17-21.

7. Idem, p. 23.

8. "I, JOCON C. ESPINO, of legal age. Filipino, lawyer, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, deposes and says:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. — That I am the counsel for the plaintiff in the above entitled case; That I received the copy of the decision rendered by this Honorable Court dated August 23, 1972 on September 22, 1972; That from said decision, the herein plaintiff is appealing the same to the Court of Appeals and that this notice of appeal is filed within the period fixed under Republic Act No. 5434."




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






June-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 145 CFI June 11, 1975 - VICENTE A. CASTRO v. VICENTE P. BULLECER

  • A.C. No. 223-J June 11, 1975 - ROMEO S. PEREZ v. CARLOS ABIERA

  • G.R. No. L-25650 June 11, 1975 - ISIDORA L. CABALIW, ET AL. v. SOTERO SADORRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31225 June 11, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SAMONTE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-31284 June 11, 1975 - SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 207-MJ June 19, 1975 - PRISCA B. ARAZA v. JUANITO C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-26183 June 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL N. SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. L-32281 June 19, 1975 - PEDRO ERMAC v. CENON MEDELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37630 June 19, 1975 - CATALINO LACIFICAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24971 June 20, 1975 - GREGORIO TAN, JR. v. MALCOLM G. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39254 June 20, 1975 - CENON C. SOLIS, ET AL. v. JAIME R. AGLORO

  • A.M. No. 276-MJ June 27, 1975 - HADJIRUL TAHIL v. CARLITO A. EISMA

  • A.M. No. 667 MJ June 27, 1975 - PAULINO B. INTING v. GERTRUDES F. BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23419 June 27, 1975 - BEJAMIN SEBIAL v. ROBERTA SEBIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26358 June 27, 1975 - DONATO LOPEZ, JR. v. CFI OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30037 June 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO DE LA VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. L-30050 June 27, 1975 - CESAR B. VILLANUEVA v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31447 June 27, 1975 - AURELIO R. BANZON v. FEDERICO L. CABATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33138-39 June 27, 1975 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38532 June 27, 1975 - ANTIPOLO HIGHWAY LINES, INC., ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38826 June 27, 1975 - TEOTIMO ALAURIN, ET AL. v. JOSE NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39247 June 27, 1975 - IN RE: FELIX BALANAY, JR. v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39423 & L-39684 June 27, 1975 - JUAN C. PIMENTEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39800 June 27, 1975 - ROMEO N. HERNANDEZ v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40415 June 27, 1975 - PEDRO E. GAHOL v. FRANCISCO MAT. RIODIQUE

  • G.R. No. L-40624 June 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO B. NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. L-40683 June 27, 1975 - ARTURO SAMONTE, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO SAMONTE, ET AL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 201 MJ June 30, 1975 - CECILIA A. DE LA PAZ v. SANTIAGO INUTAN

  • A.M. No. 222-MJ June 30, 1975 - SANTIAGO PALADIN v. ARTURO V. MIRALLES

  • A.M. No. 267 MJ June 30, 1975 - RAFAEL SALCEDO v. DAVID ALFECHE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22805 & L-27858 June 30, 1975 - WONDER MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25649 June 30, 1975 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25965 June 30, 1975 - AMERICAN RUBBER COMPANY v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-26502 June 30, 1975 - ROSARIO M. PONCE ENRILE v. ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-27044 & L-27452 June 30, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28773 June 30, 1975 - FRANCISCO ORTIGAS, JR. v. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES

  • G.R. No. L-29837 June 30, 1975 - STA. ANA HARDWARE & CO. v. "Y" SHIPPING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-30489 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO MACASO

  • G.R. No. L-31953 June 30, 1975 - REYNALDO ALARAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33641 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-37106 June 30, 1975 - JOSE M. LONTOC v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-37844 June 30, 1975 - PATRICIO ALCANTARA, JR. v. CASTRENCE C. VELOSO

  • G.R. No. L-38701 June 30, 1975 - BAYER PHILIPPINES INC., ET AL. v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39046 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELANIO ANIN, ET AL.