Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > January 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23690. January 17, 1968.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, Judge of the CFI of Zamboanga City, and Lim Go, Respondents.

Solicitor General for Petitioner.

Jose G. Bernas, Jr. and Aquino & Songco Law Office for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; RECORD ON APPEAL; EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RECORD ON APPEAL, A MATTER ADDRESSED TO SOUND DISCRETION OF COURT. — Under Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may be taken by serving upon the adverse party and filing with the trial court within thirty (30) days from notice of the order or judgment, a notice of appeal, an appeal bond and a record on appeal. This period may be extended by the trial court if it appears that the appellant justifiably needs more time to prepare and file the record on appeal (Moya v. Barton, 76 Phil., 831, 832-833). Motions for extension of time to file a record on appeal are addressed primarily to the sound discretion of the trial court.

2. CERTIORARI; NO ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO GRANT FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RECORD ON APPEAL. — In this case, ample time — three extensions covering a period of four months and 10 days — was given the petitioner to prepare and file its record on appeal which was not voluminous. The contents of the record on appeal are limited to those relating to the appealed order of February 22, 1964, and those necessary "for the proper understanding of the issue involved, together with such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time (Sec. 6, Rule 41). The reasons invoked for the extensions demonstrate either a culpable ignorance on the part of the city attorney of Zamboanga City of the applicable Rules of Court or a desire to harass the private Respondent. "Time to study, evaluate and assess the evidence (taken) during the hearing to take oath" would normally be needed to prepare the brief not the record on appeal. The gathering of "other evidence from the National Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Immigration and other national agencies of the government" has absolutely no relevance to the preparation of the record on appeal — a task which can be done with facility even by a clerical assistant who is adequately trained and properly oriented.


D E C I S I O N


CASTRO, J.:


Before us is a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction by the Republic of the Philippines against Judge Gregorio D. Montejo (of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City) and Lim Go. Pending determination of the petition on the merits, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was sought, to restrain the private respondent Lim from representing himself to be, and exercising the rights or privileges of, a citizen of the Philippines. The petitioner further prays that after due hearing, the respondent judge be directed not only to approve its record on appeal, filed in connection with naturalization case 157, 1 but as well to elevate it together with all pertinent records to this Court for review. On October 22, 1964 we issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for.

The petitioner contends that the respondent judge committed "a grave palpable and wanton abuse of discretion, in a manner amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" when he dismissed its appeal which was perfected on time, and that this unwarranted dismissal entitles the petitioner to the remedy of mandamus.

The antecedent facts are not complicated.

On November 23, 1960 the private respondent Lim filed a petition for naturalization with the CFI of Zamboanga City. City Attorney Pascual S. Atilano of Zamboanga City appeared for the Solicitor General when the petition was heard on December 15, 1961. On the following December 16, the respondent judge rendered judgment granting the petition.

On February 18, 1964 the private respondent moved that he be allowed to take the oath of allegiance. After due hearing on the motion, the respondent judge in his order of February 22 declared that the private respondent has met all the requirements of Republic Act 530, ordered the registration of his decision of December 16, 1961 and authorized the private respondent to take his oath, which the latter forthwith did on the same day.

On March 12, 1964 the city attorney, for the petitioner and in representation of the Solicitor General, appealed the order of February 22, 1964 on the ground that it "is contrary to law and the evidence." At the same time he asked for a first extension until April 22, 1964 to file the Government’s record on appeal. He averred that he needed "more time to study, evaluate and assess the evidence [taken] during the hearing to take oath." This was opposed by the private Respondent. A second extension until June 15, 1964 to file the record on appeal was thereafter granted, upon the city attorney’s plea that he needed more time "to study, evaluate and assess other evidence from the National Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Immigration and other national agencies of the government, and in the interest of justice." A third extension until July 15 was sought on May 29, 1964, which was opposed by the private respondent who decried the "apparent pattern on the part of the State to unduly delay and harass" him, as "four months had already elapsed without the State having filed its record on appeal."cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondent court, on June 26, 1964, warned Vicente G. Largo, a special counsel of Zamboanga City who represented the petitioner in lieu of the city attorney who was unavailable, that "if the Record on Appeal is not filed on said date [July 18, 1964] the government will be barred from filing the appeal." Instead of heeding this order, the said special counsel, on July 14, 1964, moved for another extension (the fourth) until August 4, 1964, to file the record on appeal. This motion was of course opposed by the private Respondent.

On July 22, 1964 the respondent court dismissed the appeal. In its order of the same date, the court brushed aside all the reasons relied upon by the petitioner in support of its motions for extension of time to file the record on appeal as:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"flimsy and unfounded, taking into consideration that for the preparation of the Record on Appeal . . . all the appellant has to do is compile the necessary pleadings appearing on the records and the same could be done not necessarily by the one who personally handled the case(s) for the government during the hearing, but by any of his representatives in the City Attorney’s Office, and the period of about four (4) months is more than sufficient to do so."cralaw virtua1aw library

The court concluded that "the State has been negligent and is deemed to have abandoned its intention to appeal."cralaw virtua1aw library

The special counsel’s motion for reconsideration was thereafter denied.

Hence the present recourse.

The issue is simple: Did the respondent court incur in grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal of the Government because of its failure to file its record on appeal after it was given more than four months to do so?

Under Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal "may be taken by serving upon the adverse party and filing with the trial court within thirty (30) days from notice of order or judgment, a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal." The period may be extended by the trial court if it appears, on the basis of justifiable reasons, that the appellant needs more time to prepare and file the record on appeal. 2

Motions for extension of time to file a record on appeal are addressed primarily to the sound discretion of the trial court. Did the respondent court in this case exercise its discretion correctly? We hold that it did.

Ample time was afforded the petitioner to prepare and file its record on appeal. It was given three extensions covering, all told, a period of four months and ten days. The record on appeal intended to be filed is not voluminous. Its contents are limited to those relating to the appealed order of February 22, 1964, and those necessary "for the proper understanding of the issue involved, together with such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time." 3 The reasons invoked for the extensions, to our mind, demonstrate either a culpable ignorance on the part of the city attorney of Zamboanga City of the pertinent and applicable Rules of Court or a desire to harass the private Respondent. "Time to study, evaluate and assess the evidence [taken] during the hearing to take oath" would normally be needed in the preparation of the brief; the gathering of "other evidence from the National Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Immigration and other national agencies of the government" has absolutely no relevance to the preparation of the record on appeal — by no means a formidable task — which can be done with facility even by a mere clerical assistant who is adequately trained and properly oriented.

Nowhere in the four corners of the record of this case is the slightest indication of abuse of judicial discretion which would justify this Court in interposing its powers of intervention.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, and the order appealed from is affirmed. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby dissolved. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. "In the Matter of the Petition of Lim Go to be Admitted a Citizen of the Philippines."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Moya v. Barton, 76 Phil. 831, 832-833.

3. Sec. 6, Rule 41, Rules of Court.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 - JUANA T. VDA. DE RACHO v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23988 January 7, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEONARDO S. VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24922 January 2, 1968 - MELECIO DOREGO, ET AL. v. ARISTON PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-24108 January 3, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24190 January 8, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO GALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968 - NAZARIO EQUIZABAL v. APOLONIO G. MALENIZA

  • G.R. No. L-22294 January 12, 1968 - DIONISIA PARAMI VDA. DE CABASAG v. AMADOR P. SU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22991 January 16, 1968 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23293 January 16, 1968 - LUIS R. AYO, JR. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24480 January 16, 1968 - LUCRECIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968 - RUFO QUEMUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22018 January 17, 1968 - APOLONIO GALOFA v. NEE BON SING

  • G.R. No. L-22081 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS M. CABANERO

  • G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-24230 January 17, 1968 - EUGENIA TORNILLA v. TEODORICA FUENTESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL

  • G.R. No. L-28459 January 17, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. MACARIO ASISTIO

  • G.R. No. L-22518 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23707 January 17, 1968 - JOSE A.V. CORPUS v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA

  • G.R. No. L-26103 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-19255 January 18, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR

  • G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24287 January 24, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18546 & L-18547 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO OPINIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19752 January 29, 1968 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-23555 January 29, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22468 January 29, 1968 - PUAHAY LAO v. DIMTOY SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24607 January 29, 1968 - TOMAS TRIA TIRONA v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-24795 January 29, 1968 - PEDRO JIMENEA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20449 January 29, 1968 - ESPERANZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SILBINA FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28415 January 29, 1968 - ESTRELLO T. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. GENERO M. TEOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28518 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO G. PADERNA

  • G.R. No. L-18971 January 29, 1968 - IN RE: ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21718 January 29, 1968 - MILAGROS F. VDA. DE FORTEZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28392 January 29, 1968 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27268 January 29, 1968 - JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, ET AL. v. GO KIM PAH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22145 January 30, 1968 - A. M. RAYMUNDO & CO. v. BENITO SYMACO

  • G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968 - BERNARDO JOCSON, ET AL. v. REDENCION GLORIOSO

  • G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27583 January 30, 1968 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968 - ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ v. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20316 January 30, 1968 - LEONCIA CABRERA DE CHUATOCO v. GREGORIO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968 - IN RE: ANDRES SINGSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22973 January 30, 1968 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22215 January 30, 1968 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23702 January 30, 1968 - MARIA VILLAFLOR v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23965 January 30, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. JOSE PERLAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-21423 January 31, 1968 - GO KIONG OCHURA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968 - LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL. v. RUFINA APARIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-25083 January 31, 1968 - JUSTINO QUETULIO, ET AL. v. NENA Q. DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968 - JESUS P. MORFE v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968 - ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23980 January 31, 1968 - JULIA SAN BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25472 January 31, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ANGELA PURUGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 January 31, 1968 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. JOSE MOYA

  • G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27776 January 31, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES, ET AL.