Title
Marquez vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-45428
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1977
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marquez, stating that deficiencies in his brief should not be sufficient grounds for dismissal of his appeal, emphasizing that justice should be based on the merits of the case rather than technicalities.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-45428)

Facts:

  • The case "Marquez v. Court of Appeals" involves Gavino Marquez, the defendant in Civil Case No. 1504, filed by Hilarion T. Feliciano & Sons, Inc. in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte.
  • The case concerned the recovery of possession of a parcel of land in Iligan City.
  • The trial court ruled against Marquez, prompting him to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
  • Marquez filed his brief with the Court of Appeals, but the appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, citing that Marquez's brief lacked "a statement of the case and a statement of facts," violating Section 16, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
  • Marquez's counsel opposed this motion in a pleading dated May 17, 1976.
  • Despite the opposition, the Court of Appeals' 8th Division dismissed the appeal on August 4, 1976, citing abandonment due to Marquez's alleged failure to comment on the motion to dismiss.
  • Marquez filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that his opposition should be considered his comment.
  • The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration on December 23, 1976, maintaining that the opposition had not been filed in court.
  • Marquez petitioned for review, arguing that the dismissal was based on a grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marquez, setting aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals that dismissed his appeal.
  • The Court ordered the reinstatement of Marquez's appeal.
  • The Court directed the Court of Appeals to determine if the correcti...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Marquez's appeal.
  • There was no abandonment of the appeal as Marquez had indeed filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, which should have been considered his comment.
  • Even the private respondent admitted that Marquez had filed an opposition.
  • The dismissal was based on a wrong premise.
  • The deficiencies in Marquez's brief, specifically the lack of a statement of the case and a statement of facts, were not suffici...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.