Facts:

• The case involves the Heirs of Feliciano Nantes, represented by Lorenzana Nantes, as the appellants-petitioners.
• The case was filed against the Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Angel A. Daquigan (Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch I), the Provincial Sheriff of La Union, and the Republic of the Philippines as the plaintiffs-appellees.
• The case was decided on July 25, 1983.
• The petitioners were indigent and represented by the COMELEC Legal Assistance Office (LAO) due to their economic status.
• After receiving an adverse decision, their counsel, Atty. Felimon Asperin of LAO, did everything necessary to perfect an appeal except for the submission of a record on appeal.
• On the last day for submitting the record on appeal, Atty. Perfecto Gaona of LAO appeared as counsel and requested an extension of time to finish the record on appeal due to his workload.
• However, the trial court disapproved Atty. Gaona's appearance and denied the request for an extension of time.
• The trial court also struck out the record on appeal filed by Atty. Asperin and issued a writ of execution.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court held that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion.
• While a motion for extension of time is within the discretion of the court and appeal is a statutory privilege, the trial court's actions were unjust considering the petitioners' indigent status.
• The court should not have disapproved Atty. Gaona's appearance as the LAO had been representing the petitioners since the beginning of the litigation.
• The cour...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The trial court's denial of the ...continue reading