Facts:

On May 5, 1970, Renato Calvelo initiated legal proceedings against Honorato B. Aquino, Angelino M. Banzon, and Aurora B. Camacho for the recovery of a sum of money. This case was filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, specifically in Caloocan City, and was docketed as Civil Case No. C-1773. The case took a turn on January 12, 1973, when the trial court rendered a default judgment against the defendants due to their failure to appear at the trial. The defendants were formally notified of this judgment on January 16, 1973. Subsequently, on February 14, 1973, the defendants filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal. However, on June 1, 1973, Calvelo moved to dismiss the appeal on two grounds: first, that the defendants did not file a separate notice of appeal apart from the record on appeal, and second, that the appeal bond was submitted beyond the deadline. The trial court granted this motion on October 9, 1973, ruling that the appeal bond, despi

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On May 5, 1970, Renato Calvelo filed an action for the recovery of a sum of money against three defendants: Honorato B. Aquino, Angelino M. Banzon, and Aurora B. Camacho, at the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City Branch (Civil Case No. C-1773).
• The action was brought due to a financial dispute, with Calvelo seeking monetary relief from the defendants.

Default Judgment and Subsequent Developments

• The defendants failed to appear at trial, which led to a default judgment rendered against them on January 12, 1973.
• The defendants received a copy of the decision on January 16, 1973, thereby being officially notified of the judgment.

Filing of the Appeal

• On February 14, 1973, the defendants—Honorato B. Aquino and Angelino M. Banzon—filed a notice of appeal, accompanied by an appeal bond and the record on appeal.
• The appeal bond was in the form of a money order, which was postmarked February 14, 1973, although the actual receipt by the court occurred on March 9, 1973.

Motion to Dismiss the Appeal

• On June 1, 1973, the plaintiff (Renato Calvelo) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that:
• The defendants had failed to file a separate and distinct notice of appeal, apart from the record on appeal;
• The appeal bond was filed out of time, as evidenced by the receipt date that contradicted the postmark.
• On October 9, 1973, the trial court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not filed within the required time, basing its decision on the discrepancy between the postmark date and the actual receipt of the bond.

Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus

• In response to the dismissal, the defendants, Honorato B. Aquino and Angelino M. Banzon, filed a petition for certiorari, accompanied by a petition for mandamus, with the objective of annulling and setting aside the trial court’s dismissive order.
• The petition highlighted that, pursuant to Interim Rules of Court No. 18, an appeal bond is no longer a necessity for filing an appeal, thereby rendering the issue of timing with respect to the appeal bond moot.

Issue:

• Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was filed out of time, despite being postmarked on the proper date.
• Whether the failure to file a separate notice of appeal (outside of that contained in the record on appeal) could legitimately justify the dismissal of the appeal.
• How the adoption of Interim Rules of Court No. 18, which exempts the requirement of an appeal bond, impacts the validity of the trial court’s dismissal order based on the timeliness of the appeal bond.
• Whether the procedural defect cited by the trial court, in light of the changed rule, remains a valid basis to deny the appeal and affirm the default judgment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)