Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > May 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 81957 May 23, 1989 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 81957. May 23, 1989.]

PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE ROLANDO SANTOS and IMELDA C. SANTOS, Respondents.

Vicente Pascual, Jr. and Jose Teodorico V. Molina for Petitioner.

Nazareno, Azada, Sabado & Dizon for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; BRIEF; GROUNDS FOR STRIKING OUT OF THE BRIEF. — The grounds for the striking out of the Brief were: (1) it did not comply with Section 16 (b) of Rule 46, which requires that an Appellant’s Brief must contain an assignment of the errors which shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated; and (2) under the heading "Statement of Facts," there is no clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the facts of the case sufficient in detail with page references to the record as required by Sec. 16 (d) of the same Rule.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUIRED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS ACCOMPLISHED BY DISCUSSION. — We note that although not actually spelled out as an "Assignment", the errors in the appealed Decision of the Trial Court are sufficiently stated and assigned in Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief filed before the Appellate Court. In other words, sufficiently assailed in the Brief is the correctness of the Trial Court’s findings on the issue/s in controversy. The purpose of the required assignment of errors has been accomplished.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; STATEMENT OF THE CASE NOT IN PROPER NARRATIVE FORM, SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIED IN CASE AT BAR. — It is true that Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief contained only a Statement of the Case erroneously labelled as "Statement of Facts." Thus, it recited the allegations in the Complaint, the averments in the Answer, and the Decision of the Trial Court. While not in proper narrative form, substantially given are the admitted facts and those in controversy as well as the proof relative thereto.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEFICIENCIES MAY BE OVERLOOKED; PLEADINGS AND REMEDIAL LAWS SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED. — More importantly, under the facts of the case, we may overlook the deficiencies, including the absence of page references to the record in Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief in order to do justice in this case (Velayo, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., L-49933, August 6, 1980, 99 SCRA 101). "Pleadings as well as remedial laws should be construed liberally in order that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice, due to legal technicalities, may be avoided." (Cruz and Sta. Maria, Et Al., v. The Payatas Estate Improvement Co., Inc. 103 Phil. 1017 [1958]). Besides, unlike in the Palomique case, supra, relied upon by the Appellate Court, the appeal herein does not appear frivolous and dilatory.


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


The crux of this controversy focuses on the dismissal of Petitioner-Appellant’s appeal by respondent Appellate Court for failure of the former’s Brief to contain an Assignment of Errors and a Statement of Facts with page references to the record, as required by the Rules of Court.

The background facts disclose that on 5 November 1982 private respondents filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106, 1 against petitioner, Philippine Veterans Bank, for the return of their Transfer Certificates of Title and for the cancellation of the mortgages annotated thereon in favor of the Bank. It appears that those titles were lost while in the Bank’s possession. Private respondents also prayed for actual and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

Petitioner Bank disclaimed negligence stating that the titles were lost when the Bank had to transfer its records and other facilities to another suitable place to meet its expanding operations; that upon discovery of the loss and to show its good faith, it immediately informed private respondents thereof and filed the necessary petitions for reconstitution of titles; that after the titles were properly reconstituted during the pendency of the case, they were delivered to private respondents; and that as to the claim for damages, the Bank had compensated private respondents by, among other concessions, waiving payment of all interest and other charges on their loan of P500,000.00 and by not collecting the service charges.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

On 24 April 1985, the Trial Court rendered its Decision finding Petitioner Bank negligent in the custody of the documents and awarding actual damages representing interest paid on the loan of P730,000.00 at the rate of P15,000.00 a month from 1 January 1981, and attorney’s fees of P10,000.00. The Bank appealed.

Before respondent Court of Appeals, private respondents filed a Motion to Strike Out Petitioner Bank’s Brief for non-compliance with the Rules.

In a Resolution dated 28 November 1986 respondent Appellate Court 2 ordered Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief stricken of the record, and dismissed its appeal pursuant to Section 1 (g), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. 3

The grounds for the striking out of the Brief were: (1) it did not comply with Section 16 (b) of Rule 46, which requires that an Appellant’s Brief must contain an assignment of the errors which shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated; and (2) under the heading "Statement of Facts," there is no clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the facts of the case sufficient in detail with page references to the record as required by Sec. 16 (d) of the same Rule.

Section 16 of Rule 46 does provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 16. Contents of appellant’s brief. — The appellant’s brief shall contain in the order herein indicated the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

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

x       x       x


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

x       x       x


The Appellate Court further relied on Palomique v. Court of Appeals (Nos. L-39288-89, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA 331), which ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We hold that the Appellate Court erred in not dismissing the appeal. Appellant’s failure to make page references to the record to support their factual allegations together with their failure to make a separate statement of facts justifies the dismissal of their appeal (Genobiagon v. Court of Appeals, L-44323, March 2, 1977, 76 SCRA 37, 39, cited in 2 Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 1979 Ed., p. 509). It may even be argued that the appeal is frivolous and dilatory."cralaw virtua1aw library

We resolved to give due course to this Petition for Review on Certiorari and, in doing so, are constrained to reverse.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We note that although not actually spelled out as an "Assignment", the errors in the appealed Decision of the Trial Court are sufficiently stated and assigned in Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief filed before the Appellate Court. Thus, Petitioner-Appellant alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Regional Trial Court’s decision is erroneous on the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In Raagas v. Brayo, L-20081, February 27, 1962, 22 SCRA 839, the Supreme Court held ‘actual damages must be proved and that a court cam not rely on’ speculation, conjectures or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend on actual proof that damages had been suffered and/or evidence of the actual amount (Emphasis supplied) . . . .

"2. In deciding this case in favor of the plaintiffs the Court relied in (sic) Art. 1170 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. However, the Court did not consider and overlook (sic) Art. 1174 of the Civil Code . . . :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"3. Furthermore the awarding to plaintiffs of actual damages of P15,000.00 from January 1, 1981 is not only arbitrary, unjust, capricious, but also highly immoral, irregular and unconscionable considering that there was no actual evidence adduced in the case to justify such huge actual damages sustained. The court was merely speculating in its decision to award such unsubstantiated damages.

"4. The award of attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00 in favor of plaintiff-appellees is also inapplicable because the present case does not squarely fall under Art. 2208 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. . . ." (pp. 3-5, Appellant’s Brief)

In other words, sufficiently assailed in the Brief is the correctness of the Trial Court’s findings on the issue/s in controversy. The purpose of the required assignment of errors has been accomplished. The following ruling of this Court is squarely in point:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Appellants need not make specific assignment of errors provided they discuss at length and assail in their brief the correctness of the trial court’s findings regarding the matter. Said discussion warrants the appellate court to rule upon the point because it substantially complies with Section 7, Rule 51 of the revised Rules of Court, intended merely to compel the appellant to specify the questions which he wants to raise and be disposed of in his appeal. A clear discussion regarding an error allegedly committed by the trial court accomplishes the purpose of a particular assignment of error" (Miguel v. Court of Appeals, L-20274, October 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 760. See also Cabrera and Diokno v. Belen and Buiser, 95 Phil. 54; Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34959, March 18, 1988, 159 SCRA 24).

It is true that Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief contained only a Statement of the Case erroneously labelled as "Statement of Facts." Thus, it recited the allegations in the Complaint, the averments in the Answer, and the Decision of the Trial Court. While not in proper narrative form, substantially given are the admitted facts and those in controversy as well as the proof relative thereto.

More importantly, under the facts of the case, we may overlook the deficiencies, including the absence of page references to the record in Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief in order to do justice in this case (Velayo, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., L-49933, August 6, 1980, 99 SCRA 101). "Pleadings as well as remedial laws should be construed liberally in order that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice, due to legal technicalities, may be avoided." (Cruz and Sta. Maria, Et Al., v. The Payatas Estate Improvement Co., Inc. 103 Phil. 1017 [1958]).

Besides, unlike in the Palomique case, supra, relied upon by the Appellate Court, the appeal herein does not appear frivolous and dilatory.

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of respondent Appellate Court dated 28 November 1986 is hereby SET ASIDE, and this case REMANDED to said Court for consideration of the appeal on the merits.

SO ORDERED.

Paras and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., No part; related to one of the justices who concurred in the appellate court’s decision.

Sarmiento, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Presided over by Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago.

2. Penned by Justice Josue N. Bellosillo and concurred in by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza and Hector C. Fule.

3. 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


(g) Want of specific assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief, or of page references to the record as required in Section 16 (d) of Rule 46; . . . ."




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






May-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40062 May 3, 1989 - MONTELIBANO ESGUERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36343 May 4, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN B. DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47491 May 4, 1989 - GALICANO GOLLOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49677 May 4, 1989 - TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES v. NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55336 May 4, 1989 - BENJAMIN VALLANGCA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76209 May 4, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77686 May 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEDAN ALEGARBES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84895 May 4, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45127 May 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45656 May 5, 1989 - PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62806 May 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ISON

  • G.R. Nos. 63208-09 May 5, 1989 - CAMARA SHOES v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA CAMARA SHOES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70245 May 5, 1989 - ELEUTERIO DOMINGO v. ALFREDO A. ROSERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74453 May 5, 1989 - AMBROCIO VENGCO, ET AL. v. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75896-99 May 5, 1989 - RENATO A. VALDEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76542 May 5, 1989 - ANIANO MATABUENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77282 May 5, 1989 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78012 May 5, 1989 - DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78871-72 May 5, 1989 - PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82363 May 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO M. SOLARES

  • G.R. No. 82768 May 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANECITO L. ESTEBAL

  • A.C. No. 3091 May 5, 1989 - ARSENIO REYES v. DANTE TINGA

  • G.R. No. L-40464 May 9, 1989 - POLICARPIO VISCA v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44588 May 9, 1989 - LAURA VELASCO, ET AL. v. SERGIO A. F. APOSTOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61442 May 9, 1989 - MODESTO A. MAHINAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63971 May 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO C. ELESTERIO

  • G.R. No. 73854 May 9, 1989 - JOSE P. DE LA CONCEPCION v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-88-241 May 9, 1989 - LOURDES PADOLINA v. RUBEN L. HENSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54445 May 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO NUNAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68385 May 12, 1989 - ILDEFONSO O. ELEGADO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74075 May 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE MACASINAG

  • G.R. No. 74461 May 12, 1989 - JUAN ASONG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77588 May 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE C. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 78277 May 12, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81006 May 12, 1989 - VICTORINO C. FRANCISCO v. WINAI PERMSKUL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82278 May 12, 1989 - EMELINDA SUNGA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82506 May 12, 1989 - CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF AUSTRALIA-PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. AMADO P. PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 83748 May 12, 1989 - FLAVIO K. MACASAET & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33695 May 15, 1989 - MANUFACTURER’S BANK & TRUST CO. v. DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37165 May 15, 1989 - PRIMITIVO NEPOMUCENO v. BENJAMIN SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-47628 May 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO MANCILLA

  • G.R. No. L-48132 May 15, 1989 - LEONCIA FRANCISCO v. LAMBERTO B. MAGBITANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84712 May 15, 1989 - SEAHORSE MARITIME CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85749 May 15, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO TUASON, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86899-903 May 15, 1989 - AMOR D. DELOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 6484-Ret May 15, 1989 - IN RE: RETIREMENT OF JUSTICE RAMON B. BRITANICO

  • G.R. No. 76671 May 17, 1989 - SUSANA SALIDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 29759 May 18, 1989 - NATIVIDAD DEL ROSARIO VDA. DE ALBERTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51333 May 18, 1989 - RAMONA R. LOCSIN, ET AL. v. VICENTE P. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70493 May 18, 1989 - GLAN PEOPLE’S LUMBER AND HARDWARE, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81314 May 18, 1989 - EAGLE SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82318 May 18, 1989 - GILBERTO M. DUAVIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84051 May 19, 1989 - FRANCISCO BERGADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85815 May 19, 1989 - ELENO T. REGIDOR, JR., ET AL. v. WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84750 May 19, 1989 - BULIG-BULIG KITA KAMAGANAK ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. SULPICIO LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74291-93 May 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR LAMOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78290-94 May 23, 1989 - NATALIA REALTY CORPORATION v. PROTACIO RANCHU VALLEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81957 May 23, 1989 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80908 & 80909 May 24, 1989 - EMERITO M. RAMOS, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63279 May 25, 1989 - NONITA C. BUENCONSEJO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 33166 May 29, 1989 - A.D. GUERRERO, ET AL. v. MERCEDES P. JUNTILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67195 May 29, 1989 - HEIRS OF EUGENIA V. ROXAS, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76048 May 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO PIGON

  • G.R. No. 83376 May 29, 1989 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79902 May 30, 1989 - METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION v. CONCHITA C. MORALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82007 May 30, 1989 - FELIPE RELUCIO III, ET AL. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 32836-37 May 31, 1989 - DANIEL VICTORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-50974-75 May 31, 1989 - JUAN CASTRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53998 May 31, 1989 - ENRICO MALONZO, ET AL. v. HERMINIO MARIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55372 May 31, 1989 - LETTY HAHN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65589 May 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SOMERA

  • G.R. No. 77231 May 31, 1989 - SAN JOSE CITY ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE, INC. v. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80264 May 31, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL VILLAGE SCHOOL v. AMIR PUKUNUM D. PUNDOGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84358 May 31, 1989 - RAMON CARENAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3086 May 31, 1989 - IN RE: BALTAZAR R. DIZON