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-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 117690 September 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DANO

  • G.R. No. 128567 September 1, 2000 - HUERTA ALBA RESORT INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1582 September 4, 2000 - COB C. DE LA CRUZ v. RODOLFO M. SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 134763 September 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO RIGLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137785 September 4, 2000 - NAPOCOR v. VINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139282 September 4, 2000 - ROMEO DIEGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90828 September 5, 2000 - MELVIN COLINARES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124077 September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADORACION SEVILLA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129239 September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAUL LAPIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 131848-50 September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLARAZA

  • G.R. No. 139853 September 5, 2000 - FERDINAND THOMAS M. SOLLER v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1307 September 6, 2000 - MANUEL BUNYI, ET AL. v. FELIX A. CARAOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1309 September 6, 2000 - FREDESMINDA DAYAWON v. MAXIMINO A. BADILLA

  • A.M. No. O.C.A.-00-01 September 6, 2000 - JULIETA B. NAVARRO v. RONALDO O. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129220 September 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNIE JAMON FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 131506 September 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODEL DIZON

  • G.R. No. 133625 September 6, 2000 - REMEDIOS F. EDRIAL ET AL. v. PEDRO QUILAT-QUILAT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1314 September 7, 2000 - CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS v. RODOLFO D. OBNAMIA JR.

  • G.R. No. 121802 September 7, 2000 - GIL MACALINO, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126036 September 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL BALINAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128158 September 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO JUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137431 September 7, 2000 - EDGARDO SANTOS v. LAND BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 143385 September 7, 2000 - LEARNING CHILD, ET AL. v. ANNIE LAZARO, ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. P-93-990 & A.M. No. P-94-1042 September 8, 2000 - TERESITO D. FRANCISCO v. FERNANDO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 125167 September 8, 2000 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137714 September 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.. v. ROBERTO BANIGUID

  • A. M. No. P-99-1309 September 11, 2000 - FRANCISCO B. IBAY v. VIRGINIA G. LIM

  • G.R. No. 137857 September 11, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANCHO MAGDATO

  • G.R. No. 115054-66 September 12, 2000 - PEOPLE-OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE MENIL

  • G.R. No. 138201 September 12, 2000 - FRANCISCO BAYOCA, ET AL. v. GAUDIOSO NOGALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123111 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY DAGAMI

  • G.R. No. 127444 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIRSO D. C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126402 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO ROSALES

  • G.R. No. 126781 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CALIXTO ZINAMPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133918 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBOY ALBACIN

  • G.R. No. 133981 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARION BERGONIO, JR.

  • A.M. No. 00-1281-MTJ. September 14, 2000 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SALVADOR B. MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. 104637-38 & 109797 September 14, 2000 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126368 September 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY CALABROSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129208 September 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO ALORO

  • G.R. No. 131680 September 14, 2000 - SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF TAIWAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140269-70 September 14, 2000 - PHIL. CARPET EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. PHIL. CARPET MANUFACTURING CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 143351 & 144129 September 14, 2000 - MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v. HRET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109269 September 15, 2000 - BAYER PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134266 September 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELENCIO BALI-BALITA

  • G.R. Nos. 135288-93 September 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS GIANAN

  • G.R. No. 130038 September 18, 2000 - ROSA LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132603 September 18, 2000 - ELPIDIO M. SALVA, ET AL. v. ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134651 September 18, 2000 - VIRGILIO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. PATRICIA, INC.

  • G.R. No. 134730 September 18, 2000 - FELIPE GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133373-77 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO CAMPOS

  • G.R. NO. 140268 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141471 September 18, 2000 - COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN v. ASSOC. OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF LETRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141787 September 18, 2000 - MANUEL H. AFIADO, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 142038 September 18, 2000 - ROLANDO E. COLUMBRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136149-51 September 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALPAN LADJAALAM

  • G.R. No. 137659 September 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO TRELLES

  • G.R. No. 114348 September 20, 2000 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131927 September 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID BANAWOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135516 September 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. NEIL DUMAGUING

  • G.R. No. 132547 September 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ULEP

  • G.R. No. 117417 September 21, 2000 - MILAGROS A. CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120747 September 21, 2000 - VICENTE GOMEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128990 September 21, 2000 - INVESTORS FINANCE CORP. v. AUTOWORLD SALES CORP.

  • G.R. No. 136396 September 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ZASPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136453 September 21, 2000 - PETRITA Y. BONILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137571 September 21, 2000 - TUNG CHIN HUI v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1424 & MTJ-00-1316 September 25, 2000 - REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO v. DANTE DE LA CRUZ RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 129055 September 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR BACALSO

  • G.R. No. 129296 September 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. ABE VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132078 September 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO BERZUELA

  • G.R. No. 133465 September 25, 2000 - AMELITA DOLFO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-93-986 September 26, 2000 - EDUARDO C. DE VERA v. WILLIAM LAYAGUE

  • G.R. No. 122110 September 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERIGEL OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 135630 September 26, 2000 - INTRAMUROS TENNIS CLUB v. PHIL. TOURISM AUTHORITY (PTA)

  • G.R. Nos. 136012-16 September 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULDARICO HONRA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 138887 September 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JURRIE DUBRIA

  • G.R. No. 142392 September 26, 2000 - DOMINGA A. SALMONE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1319 September 27, 2000 - ROLANDO A. SULLA v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1447 September 27, 2000 - LEONARDO DARACAN, ET AL. v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 109760 September 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. PABLO F. EMOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122498 September 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELMEDIO CAJARA

  • G.R. No. 133946 September 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR NOGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 97138-39 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN TEMANEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132311 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MINA LIBRERO

  • G.R. No. 132725 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO QUILATAN

  • G.R. No. 136843 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO ABUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138054 September 28, 2000 - ROSENDO C. CARTICIANO, ET AL. v. MARIO NUVAL

  • G.R. No. 138503 September 28, 2000 - ROBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-3-01-CTA September 29, 2000 - RE: JUDGE ERNESTO D. ACOSTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1589 September 29, 2000 - JEANET N. MANIO v. JOSE ENER S. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. 106401 September 29, 2000 - FLORENTINO ZARAGOZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123299 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO CARUGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 124671-75 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINDA SAGAYDO

  • G.R. No. 126048 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODEL SAMONTE

  • G.R. No. 126254 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO PONCE

  • G.R. No. 129507 September 29, 2000 - CHAN SUI BI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130785 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RONALD VITAL

  • G.R. No. 131492 September 29, 2000 - ROGER POSADAS, ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131813 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABENDAN

  • G.R. No. 133443 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134100 September 29, 2000 - PURITA ALIPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135382 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOURDES GAMBOA

  • G.R. No. 135457 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135548 September 29, 2000 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135981 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIVIC GENOSA

  • G.R. Nos. 137379-81 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ARTURO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 139910 September 29, 2000 - PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY v. CORONA INTERNATIONAL

  • G.R. No. 141060 September 29, 2000 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141959 September 29, 2000 - JUANITA NARZOLES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 139910   September 29, 2000 - PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY v. CORONA INTERNATIONAL

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 139910. September 29, 2000.]

    PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. CORONA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent.

    R E S O L U T I O N


    KAPUNAN, J.:


    For failing to strictly comply with the provisions of Sec. 13, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, which specifies the form and contents of the appellant’s brief, petitioner Philippine Coconut Authority appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 56588. Hence, petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court and seeks the reversal of the resolutions of the court a quo.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    As antecedents, respondent Corona International Inc. find a case against petitioner for the recovery of the sum of P9,082,221.14 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The amount allegedly represented the unpaid balance of the purchase price of communication and computer facilities sold by the respondent to the petitioner as well as interest and damages. 1 Petitioner, in its answer, set up the following defenses: that the installation of said equipment was not done in accordance with good engineering standards and practices; that some of the equipment delivered were not those specified in the bid; that private respondent failed to install the communication system it undertook to put up; and that the certificate of acceptance issued to private respondent was entered either through misrepresentation or collusion. Hence, as counterclaim, petitioner sought the rescission of the contract of sale as well as damages. 2

    On 10 September 1996, the trial court rendered a decision ruling in favor of the respondent, and ordered among others that petitioner pay the respondent the amount of P9,082,068.00, plus interest representing the balance of the contract price as well as P1,000,000 as attorney’s fees. 3

    Not satisfied with the decision of the trial court, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. In due course, petitioner filed its appellant’s brief, to which respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss appeal based on the following grounds: (1) failure of the petitioner to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court; and (2) the palpable dilatory character of the appeal. 4 In a Resolution dated 14 October 1998, the appellate court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss, the dispositive portion reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the plaintiff-appellee’s meritorious Motion to Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED, and accordingly this appeal on authority of Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED. 5

    Petitioner sought reconsideration of the resolution, but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated 25 August 1999. 6

    Petitioner now comes before this Court raising the following assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    FIRST ERROR

    The Honorable Court of Appeals Erred in ruling that Appellant’s brief does not Comply with the Requirements prescribed for its contents.

    SECOND ERROR

    The Honorable Court of Appeals Gravely Erred in Sacrificing Substantial Right in favor of Procedure.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    THIRD ERROR

    The Honorable Court of Appeals Erred in Dismissing Petitioner (sic) Appeal. 7

    We find the petition meritorious.

    In dismissing the appeal before it, the Court of Appeals gave the following explanation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    An examination of the defendant-appellant’s brief reveals that it does not comply with the requirements prescribed for its contents. The appellant’s brief under the heading Statement of the Case does not contain a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action, nor a summary of the proceedings, nor the nature of the judgment, nor any of the other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the controversy, with page references to the record. The defendant-appellant simply averred that This is an appeal from the trial court’s Decision, . . . and thereafter merely quoted the dispositive portion of the said Decision. In the same manner, the defendant-appellant under the heading Statement of Facts failed to asseverate a clear and concise statement in narrative form the facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the substance of the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with page references to the record.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    x       x       x 8

    We disagree. Our examination of petitioner-appellant’s brief reveals that the same has substantially complied with the requirements set forth in Section 3, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 13. Contents of appellant’s brief. — The appellant’s brief shall contain, in the order herein indicated, the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the arguments and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the pages where they are cited;

    x       x       x


    (c) Under the heading "Statement of the Case," a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action, a summary of the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of the court, the nature of the judgment and any other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the controversy, with page references to the record;

    (d) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the substance of the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with page references to the record;

    x       x       x


    (f) Under the heading "Argument," the appellant’s arguments on each assignment of error with page references to the record. The authorities relied upon shall be cited by the page of the report at which the case begins and the page of the report on which the citation is found; . . . .

    In compliance with the requirement of Section (c) of the above-quoted, the appellant’s brief contained the following "Statement of the Case:"

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE

    This is an appeal from the trial court’s Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered —

    1. Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the total sum of P9,082,068.00 representing the balance of the contract price for Phase III of the project, the 10% retention for Phase I, II and III of the project, and the contract price for Phase IV of the project;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    2. Ordering the defendant to indemnify plaintiff the sum equal to two (2%) per centum of P9,082,068.00 up to March 30, 1995, as actual and for damages;

    3. Ordering the defendant to indemnify plaintiff the sum equal to 1 and %% per cent of P9,082,068.00 monthly from March 30, 1995 up to the time the full amount is fully paid, as and by way of actual damages;

    4. The sum of P1,000,000.00 as and for attorney’s fee; plus the costs of the suit.

    The counterclaim interposed by the defendant is hereby dismissed for lack of evidence to sustain it.

    SO ORDERED. 9

    Admittedly, petitioner’s above "Statement of the Case" does not strictly adhere to that requirements of Rule 43, Section 13 (c). Nonetheless, we should not lose sight of the purpose of Section 13 (c) which is to apprise the court as to the nature of the case before it. Despite its deficiencies, the nature of the case is easily discernible from a reading of the pleading:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Petitioner’s "Statement of the Facts," contains the following allegations:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On 28 January 1992, Appellant Philippine Coconut Authority (hereinafter PCA for brevity) entered into a contract with Appellee Corona International Incorporated (hereinafter Corona for brevity) for the supply and delivery/installation of complete communication facility/system with related office automation hardware. Mr. Charles R. Avila, then Administrator of PCA signed the contract in his capacity as such while Edgardo S. Silverio signed the same in his capacity as President and General Manager of Corona. On 11 February 1992, Corona was paid the agreed mobilization fund in the total amount of P6,727,457.47. Pursuant to the Contract, Corona then had One Hundred Twenty (120) calendar days from receipt of the Mobilization Fund or until June 11, 1992 within which to complete the works, thus:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "The covered equipment/facilities shall be delivered and installed by the Contractor in the places/regions as specified in the Bid Documents within One Hundred Twenty (120) calendar days from the date of receipt of the Mobilization Fund mentioned in the succeeding paragraph hereof, which shall include commissioning of the equipment/network . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On 04 March 1992, Mr. Charles R. Avila, Administrator of PCA, in a Special Order issued 04 March 1992, created an Inspection and Acceptance Committee responsible for the inspection, acceptance and proper documentation of all the units installed and ensure its conformity with the technical specifications as provided for in the contract. The Committee was headed by Mr. Paulino M. Raguindin. On 30 April 1992, Mr. Paulino M. Raguindin issued a certification (Exhibit "28") that items delivered for Phase I under the mentioned Contract has been completed by Corona and duly accepted by the Inspection and Acceptance Committee. On 06 May 1992, another certification (Exhibit "29") was issued by Mr. Paulino M. Raguindin. This represented payment for Phase I of the project. On 08 May 1992, another certification of similar tenor was again issued by Mr. Raguindin for which reason Corona was paid P6,054,711.70 (P6,727,457.44 less 10% retention) representing payment for Phase II of the project. Payment [was] received on July 4, 1992. On 29 May 1992, a similar certification (Exhibit "30") was issued by Mr. Raguindin for which reason Corona was paid P5,718,337.60 representing partial payment for Phase III of the project. Payment was received on July 1, 1992. On 29 July 1992, then Administrator Charles R. Avila was replaced by the Incumbent Administrator, Virgilio M. David (hereinafter Administrator David for brevity). On 25 September 1992, Administrator David engaged the services of Teleconsultant Incorporated for the purpose of evaluating the works of Corona. On 18 January 1993, PCA’s Administrator David informed Corona’s President, Edgardo Silverio, in a letter dated 14 January 1993 that due to blatant breach of the terms and conditions of the Contract and fraud, PCA was rescinding or annulling the contract. Instead of responding, Corona filed the instant Complaint.cralaw : red

    Aside from the back of page reference to the records, we fail to see how the above fails to comply with Section 13 (d) of Rule 43.

    The appellate court rationalizes further its dismissal by stating that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Needless to state, the purpose of the brief is to present to the court in coherent and concise form the point and questions in controversy, and by fair argument on the facts and law of the case, to assist the court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. A haphazard and pellmell presentation will not do for the brief should be so prepared as to minimize the labor of the court in examination of the record upon which the appeal is heard and determined. It is, certainly, "the vehicle of counsel to convey to the court the essential facts of his client’s case, a statement of the questions of law involved, the law he should have applied, and the application he desires of it by the court’." (Casilan v. Chavez, 4 SCRA 599) There should be an honest compliance with the requirements regarding contents of appellant’s brief, and among which is that it should contain "a subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the argument and page references." (Salao v. Salao, 70 SCRA 65) 10

    We do not disagree with the appellate court’s above exposition. The requirements laid down in Section 13, Rule 43 are intended to aid the appellate court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion of the case. However, we are of the opinion that despite its deficiencies petitioner’s appellant’s brief is sufficient in form and substance as to apprise the appellate court of the essential facts and nature of the case as well as the issues raised and the laws necessary for the disposition of the same.

    Technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, and not to suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from a rigid enforcement of the rules may thus, be allowed to attain the prime objective for, after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts. 11

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 56586, dated 14 October 1998 AND 25 August 1999, are SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition thereof.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Regional Trial Court Decision, Rollo, p. 82.

    2. Id., at 82.

    3. Rollo, p. 98.

    4. Id., at 41.

    5. Id., at 43.

    6. Id., at 46-48.

    7. Id., at 35.

    8. Id., at 41-42.

    9. Id., at 65-66.

    10. Id., at 42.

    11. Acme Shoe, Rubber and Plastic Corp. v. CA, 260 SCRA 714, 719 (1996).

    G.R. No. 139910   September 29, 2000 - PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY v. CORONA INTERNATIONAL


    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