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
 

   
November-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137968 November 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRE DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 123138-39 November 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. HONESTO LLANDELAR

  • A.M. MTJ-01-1375 November 13, 2001 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT IN THE MTCs of CALASIAO. BINMALEY

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 November 13, 2001 - ELIEZER A. SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN v. ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA

  • G.R. No. 104629 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIUS KINOK

  • G.R. No. 134498 November 13, 2001 - CELIA M. MERIZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. Nos. 135454-56 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODERICK SANTOS

  • A.M. No. CA-01-10-P November 14, 2001 - ALDA C. FLORIA v. CURIE F. SUNGA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1518 November 14, 2001 - ANTONIO A. ARROYO v. SANCHO L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 122736 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 123819 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT

  • G.R. No. 133877 November 14, 2001 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ALFA RTW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 133910 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE VIRREY y DEHITO

  • G.R. No. 135511-13 November 14, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENTICO MARIANO y EXCONDE

  • G.R. No. 137613 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO CABOQUIN

  • G.R. No. 138914 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142870 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINDO F. PAJOTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143513 & 143590 November 14, 2001 - POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and FIRESTONE CERAMICS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1599 November 15, 2001 - TRANQUILINO F. MERIS v. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

  • G.R. No. 123213 November 15, 2001 - NEPOMUCENA BRUTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126584 November 15, 2001 - VALLEY LAND RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. VALLEY GOLF CLUB INC.

  • G.R. No. 127897 November 15, 2001 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129018 November 15, 2001 - CARMELITA LEAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136017 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY BANTILING

  • G.R. No. 136143 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGAPITO CABOTE a.k.a. "PITO"

  • G.R. No. 137255 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137369 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALIAS KOBEN VISTA

  • G.R. No. 141811 November 15, 2001 - FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. ESTE DEL SOL MOUNTAIN RESERVE

  • G.R. No. 145275 November 15, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACOS

  • G.R. No. 148326 November 15, 2001 - PABLO C. VILLABER Petitioner v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and REP. DOUGLAS R. CAGAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1382 November 16, 2001 - MARIO W. CHILAGAN v. EMELINA L. CATTILING

  • A.M. No. P-00-1411 November 16, 2001 - FELICIDAD JACOB v. JUDITH T. TAMBO

  • G.R. No. 120274 November 16, 2001 - SPOUSES FRANCISCO A. PADILLA and GERALDINE S. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES CLAUDIO AÑONUEVO and CARMELITA AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 127003 November 16, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FAUSTINO GABON

  • G.R. Nos. 132875-76 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS

  • G.R. No. 132916 November 16, 2001 - RUFINA TANCINCO v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133437 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SAMSON

  • G.R. No. 134486 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DAYNA

  • G.R. No. 135038 November 16, 2001 - ROLANDO Y. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142654 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROLANDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 143802 November 16, 2001 - REYNOLAN T. SALES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129175 November 19, 2001 - RUBEN N. BARRAMEDA, ET AL. v. ROMEO ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130945 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CONDINO

  • G.R. No. 132724 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENIEL SANAHON

  • G.R. Nos. 138358-59 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO B. DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 138661 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERSON E. ACOJEDO

  • G.R. No. 140920 November 19, 2001 - JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, ET AL. v. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICERS

  • G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 91486 November 20, 2001 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122276 November 20, 2001 - RODRIGO ALMUETE ET AL., v. MARCELO ANDRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126204 November 20, 2001 - NAPOCOR v. PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC

  • G.R. Nos. 126538-39 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODELIO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 129234 November 20, 2001 - THERMPHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140032 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL C. BALDOZ and MARY GRACE NEBRE

  • G.R. No. 140692 November 20, 2001 - ROGELIO C. DAYAN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144401 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL GALISIM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207 November 21, 2001 - NBI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P- 01-1520 November 21, 2001 - MARILOU A. CABANATAN v. CRISOSTOMO T. MOLINA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-00-1561 & RTJ-01-1659 November 21, 2001 - CARINA AGARAO v. Judge JOSE J. PARENTELA

  • G.R. No. 125356 November 21, 2001 - SUPREME TRANSLINER INC. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132839 November 21, 2001 - ERIC C. ONG v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133879 November 21, 2001 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER

  • G.R. No. 136748 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137457 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO SIA

  • G.R. No. 141881 November 21, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO BERNABE y RAFOL

  • A.M. No RTJ-01-1664 November 22, 2001 - ALFREDO CAÑADA v. VICTORINO MONTECILLO

  • G.R. No. 109648 November 22, 2001 - PH CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES

  • G.R. Nos. 111502-04 November 22, 2001 - REYNALDO H. JAYLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 113218 November 22, 2001 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113541 November 22, 2001 - HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118462 November 22, 2001 - LEOPOLDO GARRIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123893 November 22, 2001 - LUISITO PADILLA , ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129660 November 22, 2001 - BIENVENIDO P. JABAN and LYDIA B. JABAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130628 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO LEONAR

  • G.R. No. 132743 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL CAÑARES Y ORBES

  • G.R. No. 133861 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SO

  • G.R. Nos. 135853-54 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OPENIANO LACISTE

  • G.R. No. 135863 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VlRGILIO LORICA

  • G.R. Nos. 136317-18 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO YAOTO

  • G.R. No. 136586 November 22, 2001 - JON AND MARISSA DE YSASI v. ARTURO AND ESTELA ARCEO

  • G.R. No. 139563 November 22, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.. v. AMADOR BISMONTE y BERINGUELA

  • G.R. Nos. 139959-60 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS

  • G.R. No. 141602 November 22, 2001 - PACSPORTS PHILS. v. NICCOLO SPORTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 142316 November 22, 2001 - FRANCISCO A.G. DE LIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143939 November 22, 2001 - HEIRS OF ROSARIO POSADAS REALTY v. ROSENDO.BANTUG

  • G.R. No. 145475 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EUSEBIO PUNSALAN

  • G.R. No. 145851 November 22, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001 - CIRILA ARCABA v. ERLINDA TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1562 November 23, 2001 - CAVITE CRUSADE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JUDGE NOVATO CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 126334 November 23, 2001 - EMILIO EMNACE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128886 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS JULIANDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142044 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS

  • G.R. No. 144309 November 23, 2001 - SOLID TRIANGLE SALES CORPORATION and ROBERT SITCHON v. THE SHERIFF OF RTC QC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662 November 26, 2001 - VICTOR TUZON v. LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN

  • G.R. No. 138303 November 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELROSWELL MANZANO

  • G.R. Nos. 100940-41 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN LADAO y LORETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128285 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ANTONIO PLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130409-10 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 130907 November 27, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. CESAR A MANGROBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130963 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 133381 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO VILLAVER, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 140858 November 27, 2001 - SPOUSES PAPA and LOLITA MANALILI v. SPOUSES ARSENIO and GLICERIA DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 142523 November 27, 2001 - MARIANO L. GUMABON, ET AL. v. AQUILINO T. LARIN

  • G.R. No. 144464 November 27, 2001 - GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C. PAITIM v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001 - RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 128516 November 28, 2001 - DULOS REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1485 November 29, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MARIE YVETTE GO, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-01-1522 November 29, 2001 - JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA v. ROMEO P. ARUELO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1665 November 29, 2001 - ROSAURO M. MIRANDA v. JUDGE CESAR A MANGROBANG

  • G.R. No. 119707 November 29, 2001 - VERONICA PADILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 121703 November 29, 2001 - NATIVIDAD T. TANGALIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126524 November 29, 2001 - BPI INVESTMENT CORP. v. D.G. CARREON COMMERCIAL CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129282 November 29, 2001 - DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129609 & 135537 November 29, 2001 - RODIL ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130326 & 137868 November 29, 2001 - COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS AND MANILA TOBACCO TRADING v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 132066-67 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALAS MEDIOS

  • G.R. No. 132133 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILLIAM ALPE y CUATRO

  • G.R. No. 136848 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO T. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 137815 November 29, 2001 - JUANITA T. SERING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138489 November 29, 2001 - ELEANOR DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 139470 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SPO2 ANTONIO B. BENOZA

  • G.R. No. 140386 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 141386 November 29, 2001 - COMMISSION ON AUDIT OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU v. PROVINCE OF CEBU

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 November 29, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC and MARTHA Z. SINGSON

  • G.R. No. 142606 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR MUNTA

  • G.R. No. 143127 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL RUBARES Y CAROLINO

  • G.R. No. 143703 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE V. MUSA

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 142316   November 22, 2001 - FRANCISCO A.G. DE LIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 142316. November 22, 2001.]

    FRANCISCO A.G. DE LIANO, ALBERTO O. VILLA-ABRILLE, JR., and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BENJAMIN A. TANGO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    DE LEON, JR., J.:


    Before us is a petition for review on certiorari praying for the reversal of the Resolution 1 dated June 4, 1999 issued by the former Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60460, which dismissed the appeal of herein petitioners on procedural grounds as well as its Resolution of February 23, 2000 which denied their motion for reconsideration.

    The relevant facts are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On March 30, 1998, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 227 issued a Decision 2 in Civil Case No. Q-95-24332, 3 the dispositive portion of which is hereunder quoted:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant San Miguel Corporation is hereby ordered

    1. To release to the plaintiff the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 299551 in the same [sic] of Benjamin A. Tango;

    2. To release to plaintiff the originals of the REM contracts dated December 4, 1990 and February 17, 1992 and to cause the cancellation of the annotation of the same on plaintiffs [sic] TCT No. 299551;

    3. To pay the plaintiff the following sums:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    3.1. P100,000.00 as and by way of moral damages;

    3.2. P50,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees;

    3.3. costs of suit.

    SO ORDERED.

    In brief, the case involved the cancellation of two (2) real estate mortgages in favor of petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) executed by private respondent Benjamin A. Tango over his house and lot in Quezon City. The mortgages were third party or accommodation mortgages on behalf of the spouses Bernardino and Carmelita Ibarra who were dealers of SMC products in Aparri, Cagayan. Other defendants in the case were Francisco A.G. De Liano and Alberto O. Villa-Abrille, Jr., who are senior executives of petitioner SMC.

    SMC, De Liano and Abrille appealed the aforesaid decision to the Court of Appeals. In due time, their counsel, Atty. Edgar B. Afable, filed an Appellants’ Brief 4 which failed to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court. The appellee (herein private respondent) was quick to notice these deficiencies, and accordingly filed a "Motion to Dismiss Appeal" 5 dated March 8, 1999. Required to comment, 6 the appellants averred that their brief had substantially complied with the contents as set forth in the rules. They proffered the excuse that the omissions were only the result of oversight or inadvertence and as such could be considered "harmless" errors. They prayed for liberality in the application of technical rules, adding that they have a meritorious defense.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On June 4, 1999, the appellate court issued the first assailed resolution 7 dismissing the appeal. The Court of Appeals held, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    As pointed out by plaintiff-appellee, the Brief does not contain a Subject Index nor a Table of Cases and Authorities, with page references. Moreover, the Statement of the Case, Statement of Facts, and Arguments in the Brief has no page reference to the record. These procedural lapses justify the dismissal of the appeal, pursuant to Section 1 (f), Rule 50 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion, or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    (f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief, or of page references to the record as required in section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44;"

    x       x       x


    Finally, defendants-appellants, despite having been notified of such defects, still failed to amend their Brief to conform to the Rules, and instead, argues that these are mere "harmless errors." In the case of Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113899, February 22, 1996, 241 SCRA 553 [1996], the Supreme Court, in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal for non-compliance with the rule on the contents of the Appellant’s Brief, ruled that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Long ingrained in our jurisprudence is the rule that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must faithfully comply with the rules. . . These rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. . .

    Having ruled as such, the Court need not resolve plaintiff- appellee’s contention that the issues raised in the appeal are mere questions of law.

    The appellants (herein petitioners) sought to have the foregoing resolution reconsidered. Simultaneously, through the same counsel, they filed a "Motion to Admit Amended Defendants-Appellants’ Brief." 8 The appellate court denied the consolidated motions in its Resolution 9 of February 23, 2000.

    From the denial of their motion for reconsideration, only petitioner SMC interposed the instant petition. 10 As grounds for allowance, petitioner contends that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A


    THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING SMC’s APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF PURE TECHNICALITIES AND EVEN AFTER SMC HAS CORRECTED THE TECHNICAL DEFECT OF ITS APPEAL.

    B


    THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING SMC’s APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING ITS MERITS.

    1. There are valid grounds to reverse the RTC’s award of damages in favor of Tango. The award of damages has no basis in fact or in law.

    2. The appeal involves a question of substance which should have been resolved by the Court of Appeals, to wit: whether a third party mortgagor can unilaterally withdraw the mortgage without the consent of the debtor and creditor.

    The petition has no merit.

    The premise that underlies all appeals is that they are merely rights which arise from statute; therefore, they must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. It is to this end that rules governing pleadings and practice before appellate courts were imposed. These rules were designed to assist the appellate court in the accomplishment of its tasks, and overall, to enhance the orderly administration of justice.

    In his definition of a brief, Justice Malcolm explained thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . . [L]et it be recalled that the word "brief" is derived from the Latin brevis, and the French briefe, and literally means a short or condensed statement. The purpose of the brief, as all law students and lawyers know, is to present to the court in concise form the points 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. The brief should be so prepared as to minimize the labor of the court in the examination of the record upon which the appeal is heard and determined. 11 [Emphasis supplied]

    Relative thereto, Section 13, Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court governs the format to be followed by the appellant in drafting his brief, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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;

    (b) An assignment of errors intended to be urged, which errors shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated without repetition and numbered consecutively;

    (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 resulting thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with page references to the record;

    (e) A clear and concise statement of the issues of fact or law to be submitted to the court for its judgment;

    (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;

    (g) Under the heading "Relief," a specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks; and

    (h) In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the appellant’s brief shall contain, as an appendix, a copy of the judgment or final order appealed from.

    This particular rule was instituted with reason, and most certainly, it was not intended to become" a custom more honored in the breach than in the observance." It has its logic, which is to present to the appellate court in the most helpful light, the factual and legal antecedents of a case on appeal.

    The first requirement of an appellant’s brief is a subject index. The index is intended to facilitate the review of appeals by providing ready reference, functioning much like a table of contents. Unlike in other jurisdiction, there is no limit on the length of appeal briefs or appeal memoranda filed before appellate courts. The danger of this is the very real possibility that the reviewing tribunal will be swamped with voluminous documents. This occurs even though the rules consistently urge the parties to be "brief" or "concise" in the drafting of pleadings, briefs, and other papers to be filed in court. The subject index makes readily available at one’s fingertips the subject of the contents of the brief so that the need to thumb through the brief page after page to locate a party’s arguments, or a particular citation, or whatever else needs to be found and considered, is obviated.

    An assignment of errors follows the subject index. It is defined in this wise:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    An assignment of errors in appellate procedure is an enumeration by appellant or plaintiff in error of the errors alleged to have been committed by the court below in the trial of the case upon which he seeks to obtain a reversal of the judgment or decree; it is in the nature of a pleading, and performs in the appellate court the same office as a declaration or complaint in a court of original jurisdiction. Such an assignment is appellant’s complaint, or pleading, in the appellate court, and takes the place of a declaration or bill; an appeal without an assignment of errors would be similar to a suit without a complaint, bill, or declaration. The assignment is appellant’s declaration or complaint against the trial judge, charging harmful error, and proof vel non of assignment is within the record on appeal.

    x       x       x


    The object of such pleadings is to point out the specific errors claimed to have been committed by the court below, in order to enable the reviewing court and the opposing party to see on what points appellant or plaintiff in error intends to ask a reversal of the judgment or decree, and to limit discussion to those points. The office of an assignment of errors is not to point out legal contentions, but only to inform the appellate court that appellant assigns as erroneous certain named rulings; the function of the assignment is to group and bring forward such of the exceptions previously noted in the case on appeal as appellant desires to preserve and present to the appellant. 12

    It has been held that a general assignment of errors is unacceptable under the rules. Thus, a statement of the following tenor: that "the Court of First Instance of this City incurred error in rendering the judgment appealed from, for it is contrary to law and the weight of the evidence," was deemed insufficient. 13 The appellant has to specify in what aspect of the law or the facts that the trial court erred. The conclusion, therefore, is that the appellant must carefully formulate his assignment of errors. Its importance cannot be underestimated, as Section 8, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court will attest:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Questions that may be decided. — No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.

    The rules then require that an appellant’s brief must contain both a "statement of the case" and a "statement of facts." A statement of the case gives the appellate tribunal an overview of the judicial antecedents of the case, providing material information regarding the nature of the controversy, the proceedings before the trial court, the orders and rulings elevated on appeal, and the judgment itself. These data enable the appellate court to have a better grasp of the matter entrusted to it for its appraisal.

    In turn, the statement of facts comprises the very heart of the appellant’s brief. The facts constitute the backbone of a legal argument; they are determinative of the law and jurisprudence applicable to the case, and consequently, will govern the appropriate relief. Appellants should remember that the Court of Appeals is empowered to review both questions of law and of facts. Otherwise, where only a pure question of law is involved, appeal would pertain to this Court. An appellant, therefore, should take care to state the facts accurately though it is permissible to present them in a manner favorable to one party. The brief must state the facts admitted by the parties, as well as the facts in controversy. To laymen, the distinction may appear insubstantial, but the difference is clear to the practitioner and the student of law. Facts which are admitted require no further proof, whereas facts in dispute must be backed by evidence. Relative thereto, the rule specifically requires that one’s statement of facts should be supported by page references to the record. Indeed, disobedience therewith has been punished by dismissal of the appeal. 14 Page references to the record are not an empty requirement. If a statement of fact is unaccompanied by a page reference to the record, it may be presumed to be without support in the record and may be stricken or disregarded altogether. 15

    When the appellant has given an account of the case and of the facts, he is required to state the issues to be considered by the appellate court. The statement of issues is not to be confused with the assignment of errors: they are not one and the same, for otherwise, the rules would not require a separate statement for each. The statement of issues puts forth the questions of fact or law to be resolved by the appellate court. What constitutes a question of fact or one of law should be clear by now:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    At this point, the distinction between a question of fact and a question of law must be clear. As distinguished from a question of law which exists "when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts" — "there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts;" or when the "query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation." 16

    Thereafter, the appellant is required to present his arguments on each assigned error. An appellant’s arguments go hand in hand with his assignment of errors, for the former provide the justification supporting his contentions, and in so doing resolves the issues. It will not do to impute error on the part of the trial court without substantiation. The mere elevation on appeal of a judgment does not create a presumption that it was rendered in error. The appellant has to show that he is entitled to the reversal of the judgment appealed, and he cannot do this unless he provides satisfactory reasons for doing so. It is therefore essential that —

    . . . [A]s far as possible, the errors and reasons assigned should be supported by a citation of authorities. The failure to do so has been said to be inexcusable; and, although a point made in the brief is before the court even though no authorities are cited and may be considered and will be where a proposition of well established law is stated, the court is not required to search out authorities, but may presume that counsel has found no case after diligent search or that the point has been waived or abandoned, and need not consider the unsupported errors assigned, and ordinarily will not give consideration to such errors and reasons unless it is apparent without further research that the assignments of errors presented are well taken. 17

    In this regard, the rules require that authorities should be cited by the page of the report at which the case begins, as well as the page of the report where the citation is found. This rule is imposed for the convenience of the appellate court, for obvious reasons: since authorities relied upon by the parties are checked for accuracy and aptness, they are located more easily as the appellate court is not bound to peruse volume upon volume, and page after page, of reports.

    Lastly, the appellant is required to state, under the appropriate heading, the reliefs prayed for. In so doing, the appellate court is left in no doubt as to the result desired by the appellant, and act as the circumstances may warrant.

    Some may argue that adherence to these formal requirements serves but a meaningless purpose, that these may be ignored with little risk in the smug certainty that liberality in the application of procedural rules can always be relied upon to remedy the infirmities. This misses the point. We are not martinets; in appropriate instances, we are prepared to listen to reason, and to give relief as the circumstances may warrant. However, when the error relates to something so elementary as to be inexcusable, our discretion becomes nothing more than an exercise in frustration. It comes as an unpleasant shock to us that the contents of an appellant’s brief should still be raised as an issue now. There is nothing arcane or novel about the provisions of Section 13, Rule 44. The rule governing the contents of appellants’ briefs has existed since the old Rules of Court, 18 which took effect on July 1, 1940, as well as the Revised Rules of Court, 19 which took effect on January 1, 1964, until they were superseded by the present 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The provisions were substantially preserved, with few revisions.

    An additional circumstance impels us to deny the reinstatement of petitioner’s appeal. We observed that petitioner submitted an "Amended Appellant’s Brief" to cure the infirmities of the one first filed on its behalf by its lawyer. All things being equal, we would have been inclined to grant the petition until we realized that the attempt at compliance was, at most, only a cosmetic procedure. On closer scrutiny, the amended brief was as defective as the first. Where the first brief lacked an assignment of errors but included a statement of issues, the amended brief suffered a complete reversal: it had an assignment of errors but no statement of issues. The "statement of facts" lacked page references to the record, a deficiency symptomatic of the first. Authorities were cited in an improper manner, that is, the exact page of the report where the citation was lifted went unspecified. 20 The amended brief did not even follow the prescribed order: the assignment of errors came after the statement of the case and the statement of facts. No one could be expected to ignore such glaring errors, as in the case at bar. The half-hearted attempt at submitting a supposedly amended brief only serves to harden our resolve to demand a strict observance of the rules.

    We remind members of the bar that their first duty is to comply with the rules, not to seek exceptions. As was expressed more recently in Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals, 21 which was rightfully quoted by the appellate court, we ruled that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Petitioner’s plea for liberality in applying these rules in preparing Appellants’ Brief does not deserve any sympathy. Long ingrained in our jurisprudence is the rule that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must faithfully comply with the rules. In People v. Marong, we held that deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate. These rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be after to the whims and caprices of appellants. In the case at bar, counselor petitioners had all the opportunity to comply with the above rules. He remained obstinate in his non-observance even when he sought reconsideration of the ruling of the respondent court dismissing his clients’ appeal. Such obstinacy is incongruous with his late plea for liberality in construing the rules on appeal. [Emphasis supplied]

    Anent the second issue, it may prove useful to elucidate on the processing of appeals in the Court of Appeals. In so doing, it will help to explain why the former Fourteenth Division of the appellate court could not look into the merits of the appeal, as petitioner corporation is urging us to do now.

    The Rules of Court prescribe two (2) modes of appeal from decisions of the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals. When the trial court decides a case in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the mode of review is by an ordinary appeal in accordance with Section 2(a) of Rule 41. 22 In contrast, where the assailed decision was rendered by the trial court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the mode of appeal is via a petition for review pursuant to Rule 42. 23 We are more concerned here about the first mode since the case at bar involves a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court exercising its original jurisdiction.

    Cases elevated to the Court of Appeals are treated differently depending upon their classification into one of three (3) categories: appealed civil cases, appealed criminal cases, and special cases. 24 Be it noted that all cases are under the supervision and control of the members of the Court of Appeals in all stages, from the time of filing until the remand of the cases to the courts or agencies of origin. 25 Ordinary appealed civil cases undergo two (2) stages. The first stage consists of completion of the records. The second stage is for study and report, which follows when an appealed case is deemed submitted for decision, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    When case deemed submitted for judgment. — A case shall be deemed submitted for judgment:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A. In ordinary appeals. —

    1) Where no hearing on the merits of the main case is held, upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules or by the court itself, or the expiration of the period for its filing;

    2) Where such a hearing is held, upon its termination or upon the filing of the last pleading or memorandum as may be required or permitted to be filed by the court, or the expiration of the period for its filing. 26

    x       x       x


    At each stage, a separate raffle is held. Thus, a preliminary raffle is held at which time an appealed case is assigned to a Justice for completion. After completion, when the case is deemed ripe for judgment, a second raffle is conducted to determine the Justice to whom the case will be assigned for study and report. 27 Each stage is distinct; it may happen that the Justice to whom the case was initially raffled for completion may not be the same Justice who will write the decision thereon.

    The aforesaid distinction has a bearing on the case at bar. It becomes apparent that the merits of the appeal can only be looked into during the second stage. The Justice in-charge of completion exceeds his province should he examine the merits of the case since his function is to oversee completion only. The prerogative of determining the merits of an appeal pertains properly to the Justice to whom the case is raffled for study and report. The case at bar did not reach the second stage; it was dismissed during completion stage pursuant to Section 1 (f) of Rule 50. Consequently, petitioner’s contention that the appellate court should have considered the substance of the appeal prior to dismissing it due to technicalities does not gain our favor.

    Generally, the negligence of counsel binds his client. Actually, Atty. Afable is also an employee of petitioner San Miguel Corporation. 28 Yet even this detail will not operate in petitioner’s favor. A corporation, it should be recalled, is an artificial being whose juridical personality is only a fiction created by law. It can only exercise its powers and transact its business through the instrumentalities of its board of directors, and through its officers and agents, when authorized by resolution or its by-laws.

    . . . Moreover,." . . a corporate officer or agent may represent and bind the corporation in transactions with third persons to the extent that authority to do so has been conferred upon him, and this includes powers which have been intentionally conferred, and also such powers as, in the usual course of the particular business, are incidental to, or may be implied from, the powers intentionally conferred, powers added by custom and usage, as usually pertaining to the particular officer or agent, and such apparent powers as the corporation has caused persons dealing with the officer or agent to believe that it has conferred. 29

    That Atty. Afable was clothed with sufficient authority to bind petitioner SMC is undisputable. Petitioner SMC’s board resolution of May 5, 1999 attests to that. Coupled with the provision of law that a lawyer has authority to bind his client in taking appeals and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure, 30 a fortiori then, petitioner SMC must be held bound by the actuations of its counsel of record, Atty. Afable.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, with cost against petitioner San Miguel Corporation.

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona, and concurred in by Associate Justices Demetrio G. Demetria and Mariano M. Umali, Fourteenth Division, Rollo, pp. 45-48.

    2. Annex "Q" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 97-101.

    3. Entitled "Benjamin A. Tango v. San Miguel Corporation, Francisco A.G. De Liano, Alberto O. Villa-Abrille, Jr., and Spouses Carmelita Ibarra and Bernardino Ibarra."cralaw virtua1aw library

    4. Annex "R" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 107-121.

    5. Annex "S" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 122-125.

    6. Annex "T" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 126-128.

    7. Annex "A" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 45-48.

    8. Annexes "U" and "V" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 129-133 and 134-153, respectively.

    9. Annex "B" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 50.

    10. We note with interest that petitioner has entrusted the instant appeal to external counsel.

    11. Estiva v. Cavil, 59 Phil. 67, 68-69 (1933).

    12. 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error 1217.

    13. Santiago v. Felix, 24 Phil. 378, 384 (1913).

    14. Eg., Heirs of Palomique v. Court of Appeals, 134 SCRA 331, 334 (1985) and Genobiagon v. Court of Appeals, 76 SCRA 37, 39 (1977). Also, in People v. Marong (119 SCRA 430, 436 [1982]), we disapproved of the Solicitor General’s failure to cite page references to the record in support of its statement of facts.

    15. 5 Am Jur 2d, Appellate Review 546.

    16. Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 224, 232 (1992).

    17. 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error 1325.

    18. Section 17. Rule 48 of which states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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 page references and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks, and statutes cited with references to the pages where they are cited, if the brief contains twenty or more pages;

    (b) An assignment of errors intended to be urged. Such errors shall be separately, distinctly, and concisely stated without repetition, and shall be numbered consecutively;

    (c) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear and concise statement in brief narrative form of the facts of the case, including the nature of the action, the character of the pleading and proceedings, the substance of the proof in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, the 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 on appeal, with page references to the record;

    (d) 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;

    (e) Under the beading "Relief," a specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks;

    (f) In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the appellant’s brief shall contain as an appendix a copy of the judgment or order appealed from.

    19. Section 16, Rule 46 thereof provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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 argument and page references and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with reference to the pages where they are cited;

    (b) An assignment of errors intended to be urged. Such errors shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated without repetition, and shall be numbered consecutively;

    (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;

    (e) A clear and concise statement of the issues of fact or law to be submitted to the court for its judgment;

    (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;

    (g) Under the heading "Relief," a specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks;

    (h) In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the appellant’s brief shall contain, as an appendix, a copy of the judgment or order appealed from.

    20. As added aggravation, two cases (Filoil Marketing Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate and Ilocos Norte Electric Company v. Court of Appeals) were mis-cited; see Rollo, p. 136.

    21. 241 SCRA 553, 557 (1995).

    22. Section 2 (a) states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

    23. Section 1 there of provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.

    24. Cases which are considered special include petitions for annulment of judgments of regional trial courts; petitions for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus; petitions for review of decisions from administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals and from regional trial courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction; appeals in agrarian cases; and appeals in special civil actions originating from regional trial courts.

    25. Section 1, Rule 3, Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals [hereafter, "RIRCA" ].

    26. Section 1, Rule 51, Rules of Court.

    27. Per section 6, Rule 3 of the RIRCA, the first raffle is open to the public while the second raffle is strictly confidential.

    28. A manifestation filed by SAN MIGUEL states, in the secretary’s certificate attached thereto (Rollo, pp. 169-172), that Atty. Afable is authorized to represent, prosecute and defend petitioner in any action against the corporation." . . arising from, or in connection with, any disputes involving any and all contracts, deeds or acts of whatever kind and nature where the Corporation is a party directly or indirectly . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    29. Yao Ka Sin Trading v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 763, 781-782 (1992).

    30. Section 23, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court.

    G.R. No. 142316   November 22, 2001 - FRANCISCO A.G. DE LIANO, 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