Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > March 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28453 March 21, 1975 - EUSEBIO TORIBIO, ET AL. v. GREGORlO D. MONTEJO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-28453. March 21, 1975.]

EUSEBIO TORIBIO, GREGORIA TORIBIO, CIRILA TORIBIO, AGUSTINA TORIBIO, RUPERTA TORIBIO, CONSORCIA TORIBIO, VICTORIANO TORIBIO, MARCIANO TORIBIO, and CATALINA TORIBIO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE GREGORlO D. MONTEJO, Judge of the Court of First Instance, Zamboanga City and THE SPOUSES JUSTA TORIBIO AND ROSENDO CABAYA CRUZ, Respondents.

Enriquez Law Office, for Petitioners.

Antonio J. Calvento for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioners assail the order of respondent judge declaring a decision rendered by him final and executory and disapproving the records on appeal filed by petitioners merely because it was unsigned by any of the petitioners or their counsel. On review, the Supreme Court ruled that a record on appeal filed on time, even if inadvertently unsigned, is not to be deprived of any force or effect.

Petition granted.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: TRIAL COURT ORDER DISAPPROVING TIMELY FILED BUT UNSIGNED RECORD ON APPEAL; ARBITRARY AND DEPRIVES APPELLANT OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. — The order of respondent judge declaring a decision rendered by him final and executory and disapproving the record on appeal filed by petitioners merely because it was unsigned by any of the petitioners or their counsel cannot escape the imputation of arbitrariness sufficient to warrant the invocation of procedural due process. A record on appeal filed on time, even if inadvertently unsigned, is not to be deprived of any force or effect. A lower court under the circumstances should have counsel affix his signature.

2. ID.; ID.; ATTEMPTS TO DENIGRATE EFFECTIVENESS OF RIGHT TO APPEAL VIEWED WITH DISFAVOR. — The Supreme Court has been quite consistent in preserving the right to appeal and has viewed with disfavor attempts to denigrate its effectiveness. That is in line with the basic postulate that the system of procedure is perverted from its proper function when it multiplies impediments to justice without the warrant of clear necessity.

3. CIVIL PROCEDURE; TECHNICALITY DESERVES SCANT CONSIDERATION. — Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


There is aptness in the characterization by petitioners in this suit for mandamus that the assailed order of the then respondent Judge Gregorio D. Montejo, 1 declaring a decision rendered by him final and executory and disapproving the record on appeal filed by plaintiffs, now petitioners, merely because it was unsigned was inspired by pure technicality. The order on its face then cannot escape the imputation of arbitrariness sufficient to warrant the invocation of procedural due process. It reads thus: "Under consideration is the approval of the Record on Appeal filed by the plaintiffs in this case and Motion to declare decision final and executory, dated October 31, 1967, filed by counsel for the defendants; and to the latter issue, counsel for the plaintiffs filed an opposition, dated November 10, 1967, to which counsel for the defendants filed a reply, dated November 15, 1967. While it is true that the Notice of Appeal, appeal bond and Record on Appeal were filed on October 9, 1967, the last day to perfect the appeal in this case, however, the Record on Appeal is unsigned by any of the plaintiffs or their counsel; and the Notice of Hearing, dated October 17, 1967, filed by counsel for the plaintiffs on the same date in this Court to calendar the hearing of the Record on Appeal on October 21, 1967, in the opinion of the Court does not and cannot cure this fatal defect." 2 In the dispositive portion, it was ruling of the lower court "that the appeal in this case has not been perfected on time and the appeal is [dismissed]; with the further declaration [that] the decision in this case [is] final and executory." 3

Deference to previous authoritative rulings call for the nullification of such order. In Arcega v. Dizon, 4 this Court, through Justice Perfecto, held: "It is true that section 3 of Rule 41 requires appellant to serve upon the adverse party his notice of appeal, an appeal bond and a record of appeal within the same thirty-day period for filing in court. While there is no reason why the requirement should not be enforced, when non compliance thereof would not impair any substantial right of the adverse party, it should be considered as merely directory and shall not impair the right of appeal. This stand is strengthened by the fact that failure to serve the adverse party with copies of the above-mentioned papers is not specifically stated in section 1 of Rule 52 as one of the grounds to dismiss an appeal." 5 Nor is there any need for appellant to set it for hearing. 6 Neither is the party appealing under a duty of securing from the court the approval of the appeal bond. It is the court that should attend to it. 7 What is indispensable is that within the thirty-day period, the notice of appeal, the record on appeal, and the appeal bond must be filed. 8

In Philippine Resources Development Corporation v. Narvasa, 9 where appellant failed to serve appellee a copy of the appeal bond resulting in the lower court dismissing the appeal, this Tribunal reversed his order, stressing that "it would be most unfair if the appeal be defeated on a mere technicality. . . ." 10 Such a ruling was not only cited with approval but also reinforced with a reference to the Arcega decision with its principle reaffirmed in Roska v. Ramolete 11 "that where noncompliance with service of the notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal upon the adverse party does not cause an impairment of his right, it will not be considered a ground for dismissal and in such an event the court’s discretion in giving due course to the appeal would be guided [by] the interest of justice." 12 In the two subsequent cases of Rosales v. Court of Appeals 13 and De Luna v. Palacio, 14 this liberal attitude was once again adhered to, the insufficiency of the appeal bond being considered an excusable oversight in the former and, in the latter, even its non-filing in time being held as not sufficient ground to dismiss the appeal where it was in fact procured with appellant having paid the requisite premium and having prepared the documents ahead of the expiration date.

This Court, as is thus evident, has been quite consistent in preserving the right to appeal and has viewed with disfavor attempts on the part of appellees to denigrate its effectiveness. That is in line with the basic postulate that the system of procedure, to quote from Cardozo, "is perverted from its proper function when it multiplies impediments to justice without the warrant of clear necessity." 15 So it has been in the Philippines from the leading case of Alonso v. Villamor, 16 a 1910 decision, with Justice Moreland correctly stressing: "Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." 17 Clearly then, a record on appeal filed on time, even if inadvertently unsigned, is not to be deprived of any force or effect. A lower court under the circumstances should have counsel affix his signature. It is as simple as that.

WHEREFORE, the petition for mandamus is granted and the successor of respondent Judge ordered to approve the record on appeal filed by petitioners. The preliminary injunction issued in this case against the enforcement of the assailed order of November 22, 1967, dismissing the appeal and declaring the decision in Civil Case No. 627 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City final, is made permanent. Costs against private respondents.

Barredo, Antonio and Fernandez, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, C.J., concurs in the result.

Aquino, J., is on sick leave.

Endnotes:



1. Private respondents are the spouses Justa Toribio and Rosendo Cabaya Cruz.

2. Order of Respondent Judge dated November 22, 1967.

3. Ibid.

4. 76 Phil. 164 (1946).

5. Ibid, 167.

6. Cf. Olvido v. Ferraris, 90 Phil. 555 (1951).

7. Cf. Espartero v. Ladaw, 92 Phil. 704 (1953) and Gammad v. Arranz, 92 Phil 1048 (1953).

8. Garcia v. Santico, 97 Phil. 108 (1955). Cf. Singbenaco v. Arellano, 99 Phil. 952 (1952) and Buena v. Surtida, 101 Phil. 355 (1957).

9. L-12803, Feb. 27, 1962, 4 SCRA 414.

10. Ibid, 417.

11. L-18266, June 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 553.

12. Ibid, 557.

13. L-25882, July 28, 1969, 28 SCRA 813.

14. L-26927, Dec. 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 912.

15. Reed v. Allen, 286 US 191, 209 (1932).

16. 16 Phil. 315.

17. Ibid, 322.




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






March-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-225 March 3, 1975 - JUAN L. NASSR, JR., ET AL. v. ARTHUR MOLTIO

  • G.R. Nos. L-37201-02 March 3, 1975 - CLEMENTE MAGTOTO v. MIGUEL M. MANGUERA

  • G.R. No. L-25748 March 10, 1975 - CONSOLIDATED TERMINALS, INC. v. ARTEX DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-33720-21 March 10, 1975 - PHILIPPINE BRITISH CO., INC., ET AL. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-39669 March 10, 1975 - INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40044 March 10, 1975 - PABLO RAMOS CAEG v. VICENTE ABAD SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-28248 March 12, 1975 - LEONORA PERIDO, ET AL. v. MARIA PERIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35783 March 12, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIK MAGONAWAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38427 March 12, 1975 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JESUS P. MORFE

  • G.R. No. L-23842 March 13, 1975 - ALEJANDRO A. LICHAUCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38626 March 14, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN DOUGLAS STRONG

  • G.R. Nos. L-26888-89 March 17, 1975 - MILAGROS M. VDA. DE GARCIA, ET AL. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-27263 March 17, 1975 - AURELIO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28453 March 21, 1975 - EUSEBIO TORIBIO, ET AL. v. GREGORlO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-30447 March 21, 1975 - ERNESTO S. MATA v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO

  • G.R. No. L-38280 March 21, 1975 - ST. PETER MEMORIAL PARK, INC. v. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39655 March 21, 1975 - ARROW TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40018 March 21, 1975 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. JORGE R. COQUIA

  • G.R. No. L-40060 March 21, 1975 - EMETERIO DUQUE v. CAPTAIN VINARAO

  • A.C. No. 1054 March 25, 1975 - JUAN AZOR v. EUSTAQUIO BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. L-25069 March 25, 1975 - JOSE G. SAMALA v. SAULOG TRANSIT, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25142 March 25, 1975 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., ET AL. v. PHIL-AMERICAN FORWARDERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27382 March 25, 1975 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33344 March 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRIPINO BUNSOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35113 March 25, 1975 - EUGENIO CUARESMA v. MARCELO DAQUIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38206 March 25, 1975 - PABLO NONAN, ET AL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38453-54 March 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-38502 March 25, 1975 - PIO B. FERANDOS v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38510 March 25, 1975 - SPS. DOLORES MEDINA AND MOISES BERNAL v. NELLY L. ROMERO VALDELLON

  • G.R. No. L-38974 March 25, 1975 - OMICO MINING AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. AMADOR T. VALLEJOS

  • G.R. No. L-39146 March 25, 1975 - TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DE ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40136 March 25, 1975 - COSMOS FOUNDRY SHOP WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. LO BU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40247 March 25, 1975 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25849 March 26, 1975 - ROBERTO LAPERAL v. PACIFICO CRUZ