Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > July 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-33798 July 14, 1978 - SENECIO M. DURAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-33798. July 14, 1978.]

SENECIO M. DURAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Second Division composed of Justices RUPERTO G. MARTIN, Chairman, ARSENIO SOLIDUM and JUAN O. REYES, Members), JOSE S. CHAN, ET AL. (PROTACIO POSEO, GERARDO PAREDES, TEODORO DEVORA, PANFILO ENCARNADO, PABLO ABELLAR, INOCENCIO TOBES, and PEDRO LIM, supplied), Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Despite the contention of petitioner that private respondents’ record on appeal did not show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period, the respondent appellate court denied his motion to dismiss private respondents’ appeal. He reiterated his motion after filing a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court alleging that the private respondents’ record on appeal was filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period reckoned from the date private respondents received a copy of the trial court’s decision.

In dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court held that since the trial court’s judgment was rendered ex parte due to non-appearance of private respondents and their counsel, and a motion for new trial based on accident was duly filed, the 30-day period should be computed from the receipt of the order of denial. As said order was received on October 5, 1970, the record on appeal filed on October 22, 1970, was well within the reglementary period.


SYLLABUS


1. NEW TRIAL; APPEAL; PERFECTION. — Where a verified motion for new trial based on the ground, inter alia, that due to accident defendants and their counsel were not able to attend the scheduled hearing, which motion was supported by an affidavit of merit, an appeal made 17 days after service of the order of denial of the motion for new trial is deemed perfected on time.

2. ID.; MOTION BASED ON ACCIDENT; TREATED AS PETITION FOR RELIEF. — A motion for new trial based on the ground of accident, mistake, or excusable neglect may be treated as a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court and the order denying that motion is appealable within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of the order of denial.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE. — Where the lower court’s judgment in plaintiff’s favor was rendered ex parte because of the non-appearance of the defendants and their counsel, it would be futile to appeal from such judgment because the aggrieved party would have no evidence upon which to rely to secure a reversal of the judgment unless reliance for its reversal is placed on insufficiency or inherent improbability of the evidence presented by the winning party. Hence, the appeal should be made from the order denying the motion for new trial and the 30-day period should be computed from the receipt of that order.

4. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; FAILURE TO STATE NAMES OF PARTIES IN CAPTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL, NOT GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL. — While compliance with the requirement in Section 6 of Rule 41 that the full names of all the parties to the proceedings shall be stated in the caption of the record on appeal is desirable, non-compliance therewith is not a ground for dismissing an appeal.

5. ID.; ID.; DEFICIENCY SUPPLIED, CASE OF. — When the caption of the record on appeal is deficient, the deficiency is supplied where the names of all the defendants are contained in the body of the complaint found in the printed record on appeal.

6. ID.; CLERK OF COURT; FAILURE IN CERTIFYING CORRECTNESS OF DATES OF FILING AND RECEIPT OF PLEADINGS INCLUDED IN RECORD ON APPEAL; NOT GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL. — The fact that the certification of the clerk of court merely states that the pleadings found in the record on appeal are true copies of the originals found in the record as required by Section 10 of Rule 41 and does not further certify the correctness of the dates of filing and receipt of the pleadings and other papers included in the record on appeal, the omission may be excused where apparently the clerk of court followed the form of the certification prescribed in the 1940 Rules of Court and was not aware that the old form had been revised in the present Rules of Court. Moreover, under Section 1, Rule 50, Rule of Court, such incomplete certification is not a ground for the dismissal of the appeal.

7. APPEAL; MATERIAL DATA RULE; PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUED STRICTISIMI JURIS, NOW RELAXED. — The material data rule which used to be construed strictisimi juris has been relaxed in recent cases in order to avoid injustice and in consonance with the governing principle that procedural rules should be liberally construed to attain substantial justice.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


In this special civil action of certiorari, petitioner Senecio M. Duran contends that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its resolution dated June 9, 1971, denying his motion to dismiss the appeal of the respondents Jose Chan, Et. Al. That motion was based on the ground that the record on appeal does not show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.

The lower court’s decision was rendered after the defendants, now respondents Jose Chan, Et Al., and their counsel failed to appear at the trial and the plaintiff submitted his evidence ex parte.

The record on appeal shows that defendants’ counsel received a copy of the lower court’s decision on July 29, 1970; that twenty days later, or on August 18, 1970, they filed a verified motion for new trial based on the ground, inter alia, that due to accident they and their counsel were not able to attend the scheduled hearing; that the said motion was supported by an affidavit of merits; that it was denied and a copy of the order of denial was served upon defendants’ counsel on October 5, 1970, and that, as admitted by the petitioner, defendants’ appeal was perfected on October 12, 1970 (p. 3, Motion to Dismiss Appeal, p. 18, Rollo).

However, it turned out that admission was made under a mistake of fact because, after the petitioner had filed his petition herein, he discovered that the record on appeal was filed on October 22, 1970 or beyond the thirty-day reglementary period computed from the date the defendants received a copy of the lower court’s decision. Hence, the petitioner contends that the defendant’s appeal should be dismissed because it was not perfected within the reglementary period.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

That contention is not correct. This case is similar to Vda. de Borromeo v. Court of Appeals and Borromeo, 110 Phil. 155, where it was held that a motion for new trial based on the ground of mistake or excusable neglect may be treated as a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court and that the order denying that motion is appealable within thirty days from the receipt of a copy of the order of denial (See 2nd paragraph of sec. 2, Rule 41).

As explained in the Borromeo case, where, as in the instant case, the lower court’s judgment in plaintiff’s favor was rendered ex parte, because of the nonappearance of the defendant and his counsel, "it would be futile to appeal" from such judgment "because the aggrieved party would have no evidence upon which to rely to secure a reversal of the judgment" "unless he would rely for its reversal on insufficiency or perhaps inherent improbability of the evidence presented by the winning party." Hence, the appeal should be made from the order denying the motion for new trial and the thirty-day period should be computed from the receipt of that order.

Applying to this case the ruling in the Borromeo case, the defendants had thirty days from October 6, or up to November 4, 1970 within which to perfect their appeal. Since their record on appeal was filed on October 22, 1970, its filing was within the reglementary period.

The petitioner points to an alleged "alteration" or falsification on page 104 of the printed record on appeal where the date "October 12, 1970" should read October 21, 1970 because the latter date is the date found in the typewritten record on appeal.

To explain that discrepancy, the defendants submitted three affidavits of the proofreaders who swore that the printing of the date, October 12, 1970, was a typographical error. We regard that explanation as satisfactory.

The petitioner argues that, because the record on appeal does not show the date when defendants’ (now respondents’) notice of appeal was filed, there was no compliance with the material data rule found in section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

That argument is devoid of merit because it is based on the assumption that the thirty-day period should be computed from July 29, 1970 when the defendants were served with a copy of the decision. As already pointed out above, that period should be computed from October 5, 1970 considering that the record on appeal was approved on October 27, 1970, it is evident that the notice of appeal dated October 12, 1970 was filed within that period.

The petitioner also contends that, because the names of all the defendants are not indicated in the title of the case, the defendants did not comply with the requirement in section 6 of Rule 41 that "the full names of all the parties to the proceedings shall be stated in the caption of the record on appeal." Compliance with that requirement is desirable but noncompliance therewith is not a ground for dismissing the appeal. It is not a new requirement. The 1940 Rules of Court contained that requirement.

In the instant case, although the caption of the record on appeal is deficient, the deficiency is supplied in paragraph II of the complaint found on page 2 of the printed record on appeal which contains the names of all the defendants.

It should be observed that the material data rule, which used to be construed stricti juris, has been relaxed in recent cases in order to avoid injustice and in consonance with the governing principle that procedural rules should be liberally construed to attain substantial justice (Sec. 2, Rule 1, Rules of Court; Del Rosario v. Conanan, L-37903, March 30, 1977, 76 SCRA 136, 143).cralawnad

Petitioner’s last contention is that the certification of the clerk of court, stating that the pleadings found in the record on appeal are true copies of the originals found in the record, is not in conformity with section 10 of Rule 41 which requires that the clerk of court should further certify to the correctness of the dates of filing and receipt of the pleadings and other papers included in the record on appeal.

Apparently, the clerk of court followed the form of the certification prescribed in the 1940 Rules of Court and was not aware that the old form had been revised in the present Rules of Court. The incomplete certification in this case is not a ground for the dismissal of the appeal (See sec. 1, Rule 50, Rules of Court).

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion Jr. and Santos, 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-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-33019 July 1, 1978 - MANUEL B. SYQUIO v. ALBERTO J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38695 July 1, 1978 - EUGENIO SURIA v. FILEMON O. JUNTEREAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29949 July 6, 1978 - MISAMIS LUMBER, INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32126 July 6, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO TALINGDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40603 July 13, 1978 - PALMARIN Q. HURTADO v. ISABEL G. JUDALENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45347 July 13, 1978 - LUSTIANO FLORES v. MOISES F. DALISAY, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26295 July 14, 1978 - SALVACION A. CATANGCATANG v. PAULINO LEGAYADA

  • G.R. No. L-33798 July 14, 1978 - SENECIO M. DURAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36637 July 14, 1978 - GENEROSO MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38606 July 14, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MARAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47196 July 14, 1978 - ANTONIA C. CARTAS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. P-133 July 20, 1978 - ESPERANZA MALANYAON v. RUFINO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-44060 July 20, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO PARAGSA

  • A.M. No. 707-MJ July 21, 1978 - RURAL BANK OF BAROTAC NUEVO, INC. v. SERGIO CARTAGENA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 917-MJ July 21, 1978 - CRISPIN BARTIDO v. CESAR LARROBIS

  • A.M. No. P-941 July 21, 1978 - JOSE G. ARELLANO v. JESUS AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25087 July 21, 1978 - SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHIL. LIMITED v. NEDLLOYD LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26054 July 21, 1978 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. JESUS PANAGUITON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30668 July 21, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32754-5 July 21, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL I. PILONES

  • G.R. No. L-35910 July 21, 1978 - PURITA BERSABAL v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41961 July 21, 1978 - MARCELINO CALUZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43468 July 21, 1978 - ISABEL LOPEZ ELISEO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46542 July 21, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENEGILDO A. PRIETO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-47482 July 21, 1978 - ANGELITO TAN, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31948 July 25, 1978 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. UNION DE MAQUINISTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42767 July 25, 1978 - JUSTINO PASCUA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47342 July 25, 1978 - NICOLAS GALDO v. EULALIO D. ROSETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47753 July 25, 1978 - ANTONIO A. CUDIAMAT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42946 July 26, 1978 - JUAN ORILLANEDA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-1015 July 28, 1978 - FEDERICO JAVINES v. ADRIANO MARZON

  • A.M. No. P-60 July 31, 1978 - MELBA C. AMOLADOR v. JUAN FELICIDARIO

  • A.M. No. 326-CJ July 31, 1978 - PEDRO VILLA v. FRANCISCO LLAMAS

  • A.M. No. P-985 July 31, 1978 - EUGENIO DELA CRUZ v. ROBERTO MUDLONG

  • A.M. No. P-1161 July 31, 1978 - VICTORIA PRIETO, ET AL. v. CRISPIN PERALTA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-1391 July 31, 1978 - MILAGROS PEÑALOSA v. FELIX VISCAYA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-26861 July 31, 1978 - ERNESTO D. BOHOL, SR., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO L. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-27914 July 31, 1978 - ROBERTO A. PASCUAL v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28979 July 31, 1978 - RAFAEL BARICAN v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30014 July 31, 1978 - GREGORIO ARINES, ET AL. v. EMILIO CUACHIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32552 July 31, 1978 - PEDRO MIRASOL v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33089 July 31, 1978 - STA. CLARA LUMBER CO., INC. v. ARSENIO MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37051 July 31, 1978 - ANITA U. LORENZANA v. POLLY CAYETANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39089-90 July 31, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR PAY-AN

  • G.R. No. L-40295 July 31, 1978 - ABRAHAM C. SISON v. EPI REY PANGRAMUYEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42319 July 31, 1978 - B. F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42485 July 31, 1978 - BONIFACIO L. SOLIS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43073 July 31, 1973

    FRANCISCO ABORDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43204 July 31, 1978 - RODITO T. SARIL, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43575 July 31, 1978 - MARCIANO LAMCO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-43668-69 July 31, 1978 - POTENCIANO MENIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44108 July 31, 1978 - BENJAMIN Z. VILLANUEVA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45719 July 31, 1978 - GENERAL TEXTILES ALLIED WORKERS ASSO. v. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-47711-12 July 31, 1978 - BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM GMBH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47752 July 31, 1978 - CONSOLIDATED FARMS, INC., II v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48088 July 31, 1978 - GOTARDO FLORDELIS v. EDGAR R. HIMALALOAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48198 July 31, 1978 - PRUDENCIA GLORIA-DIAZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.