Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22802)
Facts:
Maximo H. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals (4th Division) and Lorenzo G. Valentin, G.R. No. L-22802, November 29, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Maximo H. Gregorio challenged two resolutions of the Court of Appeals (4th Division) (respondent) that refused to “elevate” the trial evidence in two appeals originating from the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (later identified as CA-G.R. Nos. 33051‑R and 33052‑R). The motions to elevate were filed by the appellants (the deceased father of petitioners had been the appellant at the time) so that evidence taken at trial could be considered by the Court of Appeals under the newly effective procedural rule.
On March 13, 1964 the Court of Appeals denied the motion to elevate, characterizing counsel’s request as an attempt improperly to convert an appeal from a denial of relief into an appeal from the decision itself and ordered briefs filed within ten days. On April 8, 1964 the Court of Appeals denied a motion for reconsideration, explaining that Section 2, Rule 41, Revised Rules of Court (effective January 1, 1964) did not apply because its retroactive operation would set the case back and delay disposition and because the appeal had been perfected before the Revised Rules took effect.
Petitioner filed a special action for certiorari and mandamus on April 21, 1964. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition as premature in its April 29, 1964 resolution but later, on July 6, 1964, reconsidered and required respondents (the Court of Appeals and Lorenzo G. Valentin) to file answers. After receiving answers and briefs, the Court pr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the retroactive application of Section 2, Rule 41, Revised Rules of Court to appeals pending when the rule took effect is prohibited because it creates a new right that impairs vested rights.
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to elevate the evidence and refusing to apply Section 2, Rule 41 retroactively, thereby warranting issuance of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)