Title
Bayot vs. Mendoza
Case
G.R. No. 50542
Decision Date
Nov 21, 1979
Petitioner's appeal dismissed on procedural grounds; Supreme Court ruled cash appeal bond valid, notice not required, and ordered approval of appeal.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 50542)

Facts:

  1. Case Background:

    • The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Ana Bayot against the Order of the Court of First Instance of Masbate, Branch III, dismissing her appeal in Civil Case No. 207-III.
    • The case, entitled "Heirs of Antonio Bayot represented by Ana Bayot, plaintiff, versus Alfonso Legal, Jr., defendant," was for the annulment of sale and recovery of real property.
  2. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal:

    • The respondent court dismissed the appeal on two grounds:
      (a) Failure to serve notice of the deposit of the appeal bond to the adverse party.
      (b) Failure to submit the appeal bond to the trial court for approval.
  3. Timeliness of Appeal:

    • The respondent court found that the appeal was filed within the reglementary period but dismissed it based on procedural grounds.
  4. Payment of Cash Appeal Bond:

    • Petitioner paid a cash appeal bond of P120.00 on November 29, 1978, under Official Receipt No. 0119721-V.
    • The adverse party was informed of the payment during the proceedings on January 8, 1979, and in the opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal.
  5. Motion for Reconsideration:

    • Petitioner argued that under the Rules of Court, notice to the adverse party is not required for cash appeal bonds, and court approval is only mandatory for non-cash bonds.
    • The respondent judge denied the motion for reconsideration, citing the case of Philippine Resources Development Corporation vs. Narvasa, which emphasized the requirement of serving copies of appeal documents to the adverse party.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Cash Appeal Bond:

    • Under Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the requirement to serve copies of the appeal bond on the adverse party applies only to non-cash bonds. For cash bonds, the amount is evident, and no notice or approval is required.
    • The Court cited Olvido vs. Ferraris and Espartero vs. Ladaw, which held that the appellant’s duty is limited to filing the appeal bond within the reglementary period. The court’s failure to approve the bond does not prejudice the appellant.
  2. Liberal Interpretation of Rules:

    • The Supreme Court emphasized a liberal interpretation of the Rules of Court to promote just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases.
    • The rulings in Espartero, Gammad, and Cumplido were reiterated, establishing that the non-service of a cash appeal bond does not affect the perfection of an appeal if filed within the prescribed period.
  3. Duty of the Court:

    • The Court clarified that it is the duty of the trial court to approve the appeal bond, not the appellant. The appellant’s obligation is limited to timely filing the bond.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Orders of the respondent judge, and directed the approval of the record on appeal. Costs were imposed on the private respondent.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.