Case Digest (G.R. No. 48960)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 48960)
Facts:
Leoncia Reyes, in her own representation and as administratrix of the estate of the deceased Dalmacio Celino, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and Enrique Bautista, respondents, G.R. No. 48960, June 29, 1943, the Supreme Court, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court.
The Court of First Instance of Laguna, presided by Judge Vicente del Rosario, rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on September 19, 1942. The plaintiff (later appellant) received notice of that judgment on October 10, 1942. On October 17 the plaintiff filed a pro forma motion for new trial; the motion was denied by the court on the same date, and notice of the denial was received by the plaintiff on October 22. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 23, a record on appeal on November 2, and the appeal bond on November 10, 1942.
Counsel for the defendant moved in the trial court to dismiss the appeal and opposed approval of the record on appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not presented within the thirty-day period required by the rules. The trial court (Judge Claudio Sandoval presiding) denied the motion to dismiss and approved the record, reasoning that the earlier pro forma motion for new trial suspended the running of the thirty-day perfection period under section 3 of Rule 41.
The appellee renewed his motion to dismiss before the Court of Appeals. The First Division of the Court of Appeals denied the motion on the ground that "the ends of Justice would be better subserved" by allowing the appeal to proceed because the bond was filed one day late and the appellant honestly (though erroneously) believed his pro forma motion had suspended the period. The Court of Appeals cited Bustamante v. Tirona, G.R. No. 48813.
Petitioner then sought prohibition in the Supreme Court to prevent the Court of Appeals from taking cognizance of the appeal (C.A.C.R. No. 311), alleging that the appeal bond was presented out of time and that the appellate courts therefore lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court resolved the matter by written decision of Justice Ozaeta.
Issues:
- Did the filing of a pro forma motion for new trial suspend the 30-day period to perfect an appeal under Rule 41?
- Could the trial court or the Court of Appeals lawfully admit or allow an appeal despite the appeal bond having been filed one day late?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)