Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > October 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. 68043 October 31, 1984 - PALOMO BUILDING TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 68043. October 31, 1984.]

PALOMO BUILDING TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC., GUILLERMO S. SUAREZ & 57 others whose names appear in the list hereto attached as Annex "A", Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Fourth Special Cases Division, THE HONORABLE ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, in his capacity as Acting Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch I, Et Al., Respondents.

Telan, Cabatil & Avanzado Law Office, for Petitioners.

The Solicitor General for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPEAL; RECORD ON APPEAL NO LONGER NECESSARY UNDER BATAS PAMBANSA 129; RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION THEREOF FOR THE BENEFIT OF PETITIONERS IN CASE AT BAR. — As the Court has ruled in Alday v. Camilon, 120 SCRA 521," (t)he reorganization having been declared to have been completed, BP Blg. 129 is now in full force and effect. A Record on Appeal is no longer necessary for taking an appeal. The same proviso appears in Section 18 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by this Court on January 11, 1983. Being procedural in nature, those provisions may be applied retroactively for the benefit of petitioners, as appellants.’Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent’ (People v. Sumilang, 77 Phil. 764 (1946).’"


R E S O L U T I O N


RELOVA, J.:


For resolution is the issue of whether or not the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) erred in sustaining the order of respondent RTC Judge Abelardo M. Dayrit, denying petitioners’ motion for approval of the record on appeal due to failure to amend the record on appeal within the period granted them.

Records show that on August 12, 1982 petitioner filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Sale and Damages with Preliminary Injunction before the then Court of First Instance of Manila against respondents Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Capitol Hills, as principal defendants, and the five (5) judges of the then City Court of Manila in the injunction aspect of the case. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 82-11725. Respondent GSIS and Capitol Hills filed separate motions to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint states no cause of action and that there are other actions pending between the same parties for the same cause.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On October 14, 1982, respondent judge granted private respondents’ motion to dismiss. The order of dismissal was received by petitioners on October 29, 1982. On November 23, 1982, they filed their cash appeal bond and, on November 24, 1982, their notice of appeal and record on appeal.

Respondents GSIS and Capitol Hills opposed the approval of the record on appeal because it did not conform to Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

On December 27, 1982, respondent judge ordered petitioners to amend their record on appeal within ten (10) days. This order was received by petitioners on January 4, 1983. Before the lapse of this period petitioners filed a motion for an extension of seven (7) days within which to file the required amended record on appeal. On January 21, 1983, they filed their amended record on appeal, not knowing that their motion for extension of time had been denied on January 17, 1983.

Petitioners went to respondent appellate court through a petition for mandamus to compel respondent judge to approve their record on appeal and to restrain the City Judges from proceeding with the ejectment cases filed against them by Capitol Hills. On July 8, 1983, respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) dismissed the petition for mandamus on the ground that the record on appeal was filed out of time, and, therefore, the court has the discretion to approve or disapprove the same and that since petitioners had appealed pursuant to Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the appeal must be perfected within the period required therein. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration thereof was likewise denied on June 5, 1984.

Availing of certiorari before Us, petitioners invoke Section 39 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas Pambansa 129) which dispensed with the record on appeal and claim that herein respondent IAC erred in not applying retrospectively the said law.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We resolve to give due course to this petition. As We have ruled in Alday v. Camilon, 120 SCRA 521," [t]he reorganization having been declared to have been completed, BP Blg. 129 is now in full force and effect. A Record on Appeal is no longer necessary for taking an appeal. The same proviso appears in Section 18 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by this Court on January 11, 1983. Being procedural in nature, those provisions may be applied retroactively for the benefit of petitioners, as appellants.’Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent’ (People v. Sumilang, 77 Phil. 764 [1946].’"

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of respondent appellate court dated July 8, 1983, and its resolution dated June 5, 1984, are SET ASIDE and respondent judge is hereby ordered to forward the entire records of Civil Case No. 82-11725 to the Intermediate Appellate Court for disposition on the merits.chanrobles law library : red

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-28377 October 1, 1984 - IN RE: UY TONG v. MARIO R. SILVA

  • B.M. No. 139 October 11, 1984 - PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN, JR. v. ELMO S. ABAD

  • G.R. No. L-35605 October 11, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUDGE OF BRANCH III OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31139 October 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MORAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34857 October 12, 1984 - AGAPITO PAREDES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43792 October 12, 1984 - PEDRO BALDEBRIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61647 October 12, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62243 October 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGINO VERIDIANO II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28673 October 23, 1984 - SAMAR MINING COMPANY, INC. v. NORDEUTSCHER LLOYD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30310 October 23, 1984 - SATURNINO MEDIJA v. ERNESTO PATCHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31300-01 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY A. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31861 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRITO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32216 October 23, 1984 - NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKER’S UNION v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33442 October 23, 1984 - JOVITA QUISMUNDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34654 October 23, 1984 - BENJAMIN TUPAS, ET AL. v. DANIEL DAMASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36513 October 23, 1984 - RAMON ALBORES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38346-47 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO DIOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43349 October 23, 1984 - REMUS VILLAVIEJA v. MARINDUQUE MINING AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44455 October 23, 1984 - JACOBO I. GARCIA v. JUAN F. ECHIVERRI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45087 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCESO Q. ABALLE

  • G.R. No. L-52348 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO SECULLES

  • G.R. No. L-52415 October 23, 1984 - INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56218 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO PADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56856 October 23, 1984 - HENRY BACUS, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57738 October 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO RESANO

  • G.R. No. L-59980 October 23, 1984 - BERLIN TAGUBA, ET AL. v. MARIA PERALTA VDA. DE DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62439 October 23, 1984 - GREGORY JAMES POZAR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-64982 October 23, 1984 - ALEJANDRO B. HONTIVEROS, JR. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33841 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLAVIANO G. PUDA

  • G.R. No. L-38988 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DALUSAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39025 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO YURONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39949 October 31, 1984 - MANUEL H. SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40244 October 31, 1984 - JULIANA Z. LIMOICO v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS

  • G.R. No. L-41569 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44486 October 31, 1984 - ALEXIS C. GANDIONCO v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53568 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SALIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56011 October 31, 1984 - ELMER PEREGRINA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS

  • G.R. No. 56540 October 31, 1984 - COSME LACUESTA v. BARANGAY CASABAAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58426 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59956 October 31, 1984 - ISABELO MORAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61215 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR MANCAO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61873 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 64316 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64923 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO CIELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65349 October 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO M. ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. 66070 October 31, 1984 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66321 October 31, 1984 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 67422-24 October 31, 1984 - FERNANDO VALDEZ v. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68043 October 31, 1984 - PALOMO BUILDING TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.