Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35910)
Facts:
The case involves Purita Bersabal as the petitioner against Honorable Judge Serafin Salvador, who serves as the judge of the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City, Branch XIV, along with private respondents Tan That and Ong Pin Tee. The events leading to this case began with an ejectment suit filed by the private respondents against the petitioner, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 6926 in the City Court of Caloocan City. The City Court rendered a decision on November 25, 1970, which the petitioner subsequently appealed to the Court of First Instance, resulting in Civil Case No. C-2036. During the appeal, on March 23, 1971, the respondent court ordered the Clerk of Court of Caloocan City to transmit the transcripts of stenographic notes from the City Court within fifteen days and allowed both parties thirty days to submit their respective memoranda. The petitioner received this order on April 17, 1971. However, the transcripts were not forwarded in time, prompting the p...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35910)
Facts:
1. Background of the Case:
- Petitioner Purita Bersabal sought to annul the orders of respondent Judge Serafin Salvador dated August 4, 1971, October 30, 1971, and March 15, 1972.
- The petitioner also sought to compel the respondent Judge to decide her perfected appeal based on the evidence and records submitted by the City Court of Caloocan City, along with the memoranda already filed by both parties.
2. Ejectment Suit and Appeal:
- Private respondents Tan That and Ong Pin Tee filed an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 6926) against the petitioner in the City Court of Caloocan City.
- The City Court rendered a decision on November 25, 1970, which the petitioner appealed to the Court of First Instance, docketed as Civil Case No. C-2036.
3. Orders and Proceedings:
- On March 23, 1971, the respondent court issued an order directing the Clerk of Court to transmit the transcripts of stenographic notes within 15 days and allowed both parties 30 days to file their memoranda.
- The petitioner filed a motion on May 5, 1971, requesting to submit her memorandum within 30 days from receipt of the stenographic notes. This motion was granted on May 7, 1971.
- Before receiving notice of the submission of the stenographic notes, the respondent Judge dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on August 4, 1971, for failure to prosecute.
4. Motions for Reconsideration:
- The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on September 28, 1971, citing the grant of her ex-parte motion.
- The respondent court denied the motion on October 30, 1971.
- The petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration on January 25, 1972, which was also denied on March 15, 1972.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of First Instance has the authority to dismiss an appeal solely due to the appellant’s failure to submit a memorandum on time, under Section 45 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended by R.A. No. 6031.
- Whether the Court of First Instance is mandated to decide the appealed case based on the evidence and records transmitted, even if the appellant fails to submit a memorandum.
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.
- The challenged orders of the respondent Judge dated August 4, 1971, October 30, 1971, and March 15, 1972, were set aside as null and void.
- The respondent court was directed to decide Civil Case No. C-2036 on the merits.
Ratio:
Optional Nature of Memoranda:
- Section 45 of R.A. No. 296, as amended by R.A. No. 6031, provides that the submission of memoranda is optional. The court must decide the case based on the evidence and records transmitted, even if no memorandum is submitted.
Mandatory Duty of the Court:
- The court has no discretion to dismiss an appeal solely due to the appellant’s failure to submit a memorandum. Its duty is to decide the case based on the available evidence and records.
Interpretation of "May" and "Shall":
- The word "may" in the statute is permissive, while "shall" is imperative. The court is mandated to decide the case on the merits, regardless of whether memoranda are submitted.
Protection of the Right to Appeal:
- Dismissing an appeal for failure to submit a memorandum would unjustly deprive the appellant of their right to appeal, which is granted by law.
Precedents:
- The Court cited precedents emphasizing the need to proceed with caution to avoid depriving a party of their right to appeal, except for weighty reasons.
Separate Concurring Opinion (Teehankee, J.):
- Justice Teehankee concurred with the setting aside of the dismissal but expressed doubts about the majority’s ratio decidendi.
- He argued that if the court requests a memorandum, it should be treated as a requirement, and failure to comply could justify dismissal of the appeal under analogous provisions of the Rules of Court.