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
 

   
August-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 126899 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICITO T. BARBOSA

  • G.R. No. 128137 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO HAMTO

  • G.R. No. 131203 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 137473 August 2, 2001 - ESTELITO V. REMOLONA v. CSC

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 August 2, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO P. CABILTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131817 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE L. DOMINGO

  • G.R. Nos. 133791-94 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO SUPNAD

  • G.R. No. 135065 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY CABANGCALA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4982 August 9, 2001 - KATRINA JOAQUIN CARIÑO v. ARTURO DE LOS REYES

  • A.M. No. 01-2-47-RTC August 9, 2001 - RE: JUDGE GUILLERMO L. LOJA,

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365 August 9, 2001 - CESINA EBALLA v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-01-1495 August 9, 2001 - ESMERALDO D. VISITACION v. GREDAM P. EDIZA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506 August 9, 2001 - JOSEFINA MERONTOS Vda. de SAYSON v. OSCAR E. ZERNA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1489 August 9, 2001 - CATALINO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. AMELITA O. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 110740 August 9, 2001 - NDC-GUTHRIE PLANTATIONS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112485 August 9, 2001 - EMILIA MANZANO v. MIGUEL PEREZ SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129209 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESEMIEL MOSQUERRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134565 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. LUDIVINO MIANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138472-73 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 138964 August 9, 2001 - VICENTE RELLOSA, ET AL. v. GONZALO PELLOSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139411 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO TORALBA

  • G.R. No. 139532 August 9, 2001 - REGAL FILMS v. GABRIEL CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. 139665 August 9, 2001 - MA. VILMA S. LABAD v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140347 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO OLITA

  • G.R. No. 142546 August 9, 2001 - ANASTACIO FABELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142838 August 9, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. ANTONIO P. GATMAITAN

  • G.R. No. 143881 August 9, 2001 - DANILO EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO SISTOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143949 August 9, 2001 - ATCI OVERSEAS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144089 August 9, 2001 - CONCORDE HOTEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126480 August 10, 2001 - MARIA TIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129162 August 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY FIGURACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130998 August 10, 2001 - MARUBENI CORP. ET AL. v. FELIX LIRAG

  • G.R. Nos. 137934 & 137936 August 10, 2001 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN M. BITANGA. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143673 August 10, 2001 - CONRADO TUAZON, ET AL. v. ERNESTO GARILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144708 August 10, 2001 - RAFAEL ALBANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146724 August 10, 2001 - GIL TAROJA VILLOTA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136266 August 13, 2001 - EUTIQUIO A. PELIGRINO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1612 August 14, 2001 - MARCO FRANCISCO SEVILLEJA v. ANTONIO N. LAGGUI

  • A.M. No. P-00-1438 August 14, 2001 - JUNN F. FLORES v. ROGER S. CONANAN

  • G.R. No. 135482 August 14, 2001 - ORLANDO SALVADOR v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136192 August 14, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141617 August 14, 2001 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and MERRYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RITA C. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 142276 August 14, 2001 - FLORENTINO GO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142662 August 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY FERRER

  • A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: ATTY. DAVID BRIONES.

  • A.M. RTJ No. 89-403 August 15, 2001 - MOLINTO D. PAGAYAO v. FAUSTO H. IMBING

  • A.M. No. 96-9-332-RTC August 15, 2001 - DIRECTOR, PNP NARCOTICS COMMAND v. JAIME N. SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. P-99-1311 August 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ALBERTO V. GARONG

  • G.R. Nos. 113822-23 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL L. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118492 August 15, 2001 - GREGORIO H. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120468 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE B. LIWANAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128177 August 15, 2001 - ROMAN SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129295 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MORIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129598 August 15, 2001 - PNB MADECOR v. GERARDO C. UY

  • G.R. No. 130360 August 15, 2001 - WILSON ONG CHING KIAN CHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136834 August 15, 2001 - FELIX SENDON, ET AL. v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137271 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. REYNALDO CORRE JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137509 August 15, 2001 - PEVET ADALID FELIZARDO, ET AL v. SIEGFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 137969-71 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RAFAEL SALALIMA

  • G.R. No. 139337 August 15, 2001 - MA. CARMINIA C. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139420 August 15, 2001 - ROBERTO R. SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001 - LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN, ET AL v. LAMBERTO T. CHUA

  • G.R. No. 144813 August 15, 2001 - GOLD LINE TRANSIT v. LUISA RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 147270 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: PETE C. LAGRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1565 August 16, 2001 - FEDERICO S. BERNARDO v. PATERNO G. TIAMSON

  • G.R. No. 119900 August 16, 2001 - SUNNY MOTORS SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121897 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL TEMPLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126200 August 16, 2001 - DEV’T. BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126926 August 16, 2001 - RAMON P. ARON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127543 August 16, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL PIPES, ET AL. v. F. F. CRUZ & CO.

  • G.R. No. 132155 August 16, 2001 - ARAS-ASAN TIMBER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134292 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 136365 August 16, 2001 - ENRIQUE R. CAMACHO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NAT’L. BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136780 August 16, 2001 - JEANETTE D. MOLINO v. SECURITY DINERS INTERNATIONAL CORP.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597 August 20, 2001 - WILSON ANDRES v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 August 20, 2001 - MIGUEL ARGEL v. HERMINIA M. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 110055 August 20, 2001 - ASUNCION SAN JUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111685 August 20, 2001 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131866 August 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS DOCTOLERO

  • G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001 - GUALBERTO CASTRO v. RICARDO GLORIA

  • G.R. No. 132684 August 20, 2001 - HERNANI N. FABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134718 August 20, 2001 - ROMANA INGJUGTIRO v. LEON V. CASALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142401 August 20, 2001 - ANDREW TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137299 August 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO NANAS

  • G.R. No. 138869 August 21, 2001 - DAVID SO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140519 August 21, 2001 - PHIL. RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. THELMA RUPA

  • G.R. No. 130817 August 22, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138403 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY C. ABULENCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 141712-13 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO M. BOHOL

  • G.R. No. 143867 August 22, 2001 - PLDT v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128628 August 23, 2001 - ILDEFONSO SAMALA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133749 August 23, 2001 - HERNANDO R. PEÑALOSA v. SEVERINO C. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 133789 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO P. CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136506 August 23, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137199-230 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE J. ALAY-AY

  • G.R. No. 137842 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO H. CATUBIG

  • G.R. No. 138588 August 23, 2001 - FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DIAZ REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. 138022 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 144142 August 23, 2001 - YOLANDA AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 August 24, 2001 - RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131609 August 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO PUERTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1571 August 28, 2001 - JESUS GUILLAS v. RENATO D. MUÑEZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1645 August 28, 2001 - VICTORINO S. SIANGHIO, JR. v. BIENVENIDO L. REYES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626 August 28, 2001 - JOSELITO D. FRANI v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

  • G.R. Nos. 100633 & 101550 August 28, 2001 - SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114118 August 28, 2001 - SIMEON BORLADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125728 August 28, 2001 - MARIA ALVAREZ VDA. DE DELGADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129960 August 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 131175 August 28, 2001 - JOVITO VALENZUELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133056 August 28, 2001 - FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA v. PUYAT VINYL PRODUCTS

  • G.R. No. 140812 August 28, 2001 - CANDIDO ALFARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143256 August 28, 2001 - RODOLFO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144653 August 28, 2001 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC August 30, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. TERESITA Q. ORBIGO-MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. TULIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119811 August 30, 2001 - SOCORRO S. TORRES, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123980 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CALIMLIM

  • G.R. No. 127905 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO REMUDO

  • G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133113 August 30, 2001 - EDGAR H. ARREZA v. MONTANO M. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 136280 August 30, 2001 - ORCHARD REALTY and DEV’T CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139083 August 30, 2001 - FLORENCIA PARIS v. DIONISIO A. ALFECHE

  • G.R. No. 140229 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY BALMOJA

  • G.R. No. 140995 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO M. REGALA

  • G.R. No. 141128 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORPIANO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 141283 August 30, 2001 - SEGOVIA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. J.L. DUMATOL REALTY

  • G.R. No. 144442 August 30, 2001 - JESUS SALVATIERRA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A. M. No. 00-7-299-RTC August 31, 2001 - REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO. R-1692 RTC BR. 45

  • A.M. No. 00-8-03-SB August 31, 2001 - RE: UNNUMBERED RESOLUTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN RE ACQUISITION OF THREE [3] MOTOR VEHICLES FOR OFFICIAL USE OF JUSTICES

  • A.M. No. P-99-1316 August 31, 2001 - KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. Nos. 132548-49 August 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO MIASCO

  • G.R. No. 141211 August 31, 2001 - CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 128628   August 23, 2001 - ILDEFONSO SAMALA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 128628. August 23, 2001.]

    ILDEFONSO SAMALA AND BENJAMIN BABISTA, Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite, and ROMULO OCAMPO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    PARDO, J.:


    What is before the Court is an appeal via certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 that denied the petition for relief from the order granting a writ of execution.chanrob1es virtual law library

    On October 19, 1990, at about 8:00 p.m., Super Saint Bus with plate number NKJ 468 and body number 975 sideswiped a Yamaha motorcycle with plate number MCGB 5256, along Panamitan Highway, Kawit, Cavite. Romulo Ocampo was riding at the back of the motorcycle driver.

    As a result of the impact, Ocampo was thrown several meters away and landed on a concrete highway causing serious physical injuries on his neck and left leg. He was confined at the Perpetual Help Hospital for three days and had several months of treatment.

    After hitting the motorcycle, the bus sped away. The driver, Benjamin Babista, did not even lend assistance to the victim and left the victim on the highway.

    On December 20, 1990, Romulo Ocampo filed with the Regional Trial Court, Cavite, Branch 15, Naic, a complaint 2 for damages against driver Benjamin Babista and the owner of the Super Saint Bus, Ildefonso Samala.

    After due trial, on May 15, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent Ocampo, the decretal portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "Wherefore, the Court finds judgment in favor of plaintiff as against defendants jointly and solidarily and Orders the defendants to pay plaintiffs follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. To pay jointly and severally plaintiff:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    a. P11,000.00 as actual damages

    b. P30,000.00 as consequential damages

    c. P78,192.00 as loss of earning

    d. P50,000.00 as moral damages

    e. P40,000.00 as exemplary damages

    f. P15,000.00 for attorney’s fees

    g. P3,000.00 for litigation expenses

    "2. To pay the costs of suit.

    "SO ORDERED.

    "Naic, Cavite, May 15, 1995.

    "ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO

    "Judge" 3

    On October 16, 1995, petitioners filed with the trial court a notice of appeal.

    On October 17, 1995, the trial court denied the appeal. We quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "This refers to the Notice of Appeal received and filed on 16 October 1995. The decision sought to be appealed was received on 29 September 1995. It is clear that more than 15 days had elapsed; hence, the decision is now final.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "WHEREFORE, the Notice of Appeal cannot be given due course.

    "SO ORDERED.

    "Naic, Cavite, 17 October 1995.

    "EMERITO M. AGCAOILI

    "Assisting Judge" 4

    On November 24, 1995, petitioners filed with the trial court a petition for relief from order denying their appeal. Petitioners argued that the reason for the failure to file the notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days was the fact that the notice was entrusted to Jose Samala, Jr. but he suffered from diarrhea on October 11 to 12, 1995. He could not leave the house and nobody could attend to the filing of the notice. Thus, he filed it only on Monday, October 16, 1995, thinking that the period had not lapsed.

    On February 21, 1996, the trial court denied the petition for relief for not having adduced any reason compelling enough to warrant reconsideration of the order. 5

    On March 7, 1996 petitioners filed with the trial court their notice of appeal. 6 Petitioners appealed the orders of October 17, 1995 and February 21, 1996, denying the petition for relief to the Court of Appeals.chanrob1es virtua1 law library

    Meanwhile, on March 20, 1996, the trial court granted respondent Ocampo’s motion for writ of execution. 7

    On April 8, 1996, petitioners filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration 8 of the order dated March 20, 1996. In their motion, petitioners prayed for denial of the writ of execution and for the records of the case to be elevated to the Court of Appeals for review.

    On July 1, 1996, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. 9

    On July 17, 1996, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals 10 a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the trial court’s denial of the petition for relief from order.

    On September 17, 1996 the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision denying the petition. 11

    On October 2, 1996, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial. 12

    On March 7, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. 13

    Hence, this petition. 14

    The issue presented is whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to grant petitioners’ relief from order that denied their appeal from the judgment of the trial court.

    Samoso v. CA 15 elucidates that relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court (1964 Revision) is a remedy provided to any person against whom a decision or order is entered into through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy that is allowed in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy. 16

    Thus, the question now before us is whether the failure of petitioners to file the notice of appeal on time (one day late) would fall under excusable negligence.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We said that the general aim of procedural law is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing in mind that procedural rules are created not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. 17 In rendering decisions, courts must not be too dogmatic. A complete view must be taken in order to render a just and equitable judgment. 18 It is far better to dispose of a case on the merits, which is a primordial end than on technicality that may result in injustice. 19

    The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality. 20 Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts. 21

    In this case, the last day for filing the notice of appeal fell on a Friday, October 13, 1995. Petitioners entrusted the filing of the notice of appeal to Jose Samala on October 11, 1995. However, he suffered from stomach pains which lasted until the following days. Jose Samala filed the notice immediately on the next business day, Monday, October 16, 1995. He believed in good faith that he could still file it on Monday. Delay in filing the notice of appeal was actually for one (1) day. Saturday and Sunday are excluded. Considering the facts of the case, this was excusable negligence.

    In United Airlines v. Uy, 22 where the respondent filed his notice of appeal two (2) days later than the prescribed period, although his counsel failed to give the reason for the delay, we gave due course to the appeal due to the unique and peculiar facts of the case and the serious question of law it poses.

    The real purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. 23 Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to petitioners, a one-day delay does not justify their appeal’s denial.

    We are inclined to give the same consideration in this case in light of the rules on justice, equity and fair play. After all, the petition embodied circumstances that warrant heeding the petitioners’ plea for justice. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. 24

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41281 is hereby REVERSED. The trial court is ordered to elevate the records of Civil Case No. NC-346 to the Court of Appeals for review in due course of appeal.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    DAVIDE, JR., C.J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I am unable to concur with the majority opinion penned by my respected colleague Mr. Justice Bernardo P. Pardo. The decision unduly relaxes the rule prescribing the period within which to perfect an appeal; adds another easy-to-concoct ground to suspend the application of the rule; and establishes a precedent which may render meaningless the rationale for the rule.

    The procedural antecedents in this case, as summarized in the majority opinion, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Petitioners received a copy of the trial court’s decision on 29 September 1995. They filed a notice of appeal on 16 October 1995. In its order of 17 October 1995, the trial court denied due course to the appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Their petition for relief from the order of 17 October 1995, filed on 24 November 1995, was also denied by the trial court in its order of 21 February 1996.

    On 7 March 1996 petitioners appealed from the orders of 17 October 1995 and 21 February 1996.

    In the meantime, respondents filed with the trial court a motion for the execution of the judgment, which the court granted in its order of 20 March 1996. Petitioner’s motion for the reconsideration of that order, which also contained a prayer for the elevation of the records of the case to the Court of Appeals for review, was denied by the trial court in its order of 1 July 1996.

    As a consequence, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals on 17 July 1996 a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the trial court’s denial of the petition for relief from the order denying the appeal.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Court of Appeals denied the petition on 17 September 1996. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals in the resolution of 7 March 1997, petitioners filed the petition in this case.

    The issue is quite plain and simple: Did the Court of Appeals commit any reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s petition? The answer is clearly in the negative.

    In the first place, it is undisputed that the notice of appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period. The trial court denied the petition for relief because it found no compelling reason to reconsider the denial of the appeal. The reason given by petitioner for their late filing of a notice of appeal was too flimsy. As stated in the majority opinion, the reason was that: "the notice was entrusted to Jose Samala, Jr., but he suffered from diarrhea on October 11 to 12, 1995. He could not leave the house and nobody could attend to the filing of the notice. Thus, he filed it only on Monday, October 16, 1995, thinking that the period had not lapsed." It was not explained who this "Jose Samala, Jr." is. He could not be the junior of petitioner Samala because the latter’s given name is Ildefonso. Since petitioners were duly represented by counsel, it was the duty of the latter to file the notice of appeal. Finally, the alleged sickness is obviously contrived; and even if it were true, the diarrhea lasted only until 12 October 1995.

    Second, to allow the appeal, thereby reversing the trial court’s order, would mean a suspension of the Rules. It is settled that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. (Garcia v. NLRC, 264 SCRA 261 [1996]). Only the Supreme Court may suspend the operation or application of the rule. In many cases, the Court had allowed appeals despite the tardiness of the filing of the notices of appeal. The decision in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals (246 SCRA 304 [1995]) enumerates the various cases. I respectfully submit that the instant case cannot take refuge under any of the instances where this court allowed accommodated tardy appeals.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Third, it would appear that this case has been rendered moot and academic by the execution of the judgment of the trial court. The summary of the antecedent facts in the majority opinion fails to disclose the action taken by petitioners from the denial by the trial court on 1 July 1996 of their motion to reconsider the order of 20 March 1996, which granted respondent Ocampo’s motion for a writ of execution.

    I may also add that the majority opinion erred in ruling that a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court was validly availed of by petitioners after their notice of appeal was denied by the trial court. A petition for relief for judgment is unavailable in this case because it is an alternative remedy which presupposes that the party concerned failed to avail of the remedy of appeal. In this case, petitioners did in fact avail of the remedy of appeal.

    I therefore vote to DISMISS the petition.

    Puno, J., dissents.

    Endnotes:



    1. In CA-G.R. SP No. 41281, promulgated on September 26,1996. Valdez, J., ponente, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Mabutas, JJ., concurring.

    2. Civil Case No. NC-346.

    3. Rollo, pp. 21-23.

    4. Rollo, p. 25.

    5. Rollo, p. 34.

    6. Rollo, p. 35.

    7. In Civil Case NC-346, Rollo, p. 36.

    8. Rollo, pp. 37 40.

    9. Rollo, p. 41.

    10. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 41281.

    11. Decision, Rollo, pp. 43-58.

    12. Rollo, pp. 59-70.

    13. Rollo, p. 72.

    14. Filed on March 8, 1997. On January 31, 2000, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 106-107).

    15. 178 SCRA 654 [1989], see also Manila Electric Co. v. CA, 187 SCRA 200 [1990]; Tuason v. CA, 256 SCRA 158 (1996); Mercury Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 138571, July 13, 2000, citing Tuason v. Court of Appeals; 256 SCRA 158, 167 [1996].

    16. Mercury Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 15, citing Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 169, 176 [1996].

    17. Maunlad Savings and Loan Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114942, November 27, 2000, citing Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutuad Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 143 [1999].

    18. Ibid., citing Tensorex Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 471 [1999].

    19. Ibid., citing Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 17. See also Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Court of Appeals, 315 SCRA 296 [1999]; Aguam v. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 784 [2000]; Tan Boon Bee & Co., Inc. v. Judge Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205, 213 11988], citing de las Alas v. Court of Appeals, 83 SCRA 200, 216 [1978]; Nerves v. Civil Service Commission, 342 Phil. 578, 585 [1997].

    20. Abrajano v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 120787, October 13, 2000.

    21. Aguam v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 19, p. 789, citing Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315 [1910]; American Express International, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 167 SCRA 209, 221 [1988]; Canlas v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 160 [1988].

    22. 318 SCRA 576 [1999].

    23. De Las Alas v. Court of Appeals, 83 SCRA 200 [1978]; Dy Chay v. Crossfield, 38 Phil. 521 [1918].

    24. Aguam v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 19.

    G.R. No. 128628   August 23, 2001 - ILDEFONSO SAMALA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    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