Case Digest (G.R. No. L-31018)
Facts:
Lorenzo Velasco and Socorro J. Velasco v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Magdalena Estate, Inc., G.R. No. L-31018. June 29, 1973, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ruiz Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Lorenzo Velasco and Socorro J. Velasco sued Magdalena Estate, Inc. in Civil Case No. 7761 before the Court of First Instance (Quezon City) seeking specific performance of an alleged contract of sale of a parcel of land. On November 3, 1968 the court below dismissed the complaint on the ground the alleged sale was not perfected. The petitioners perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals.On November 18, 1968 the Court of Appeals notified the petitioners to file forty printed copies of the record on appeal within sixty (60) days (i.e., until January 17, 1969). The petitioners allege that on January 15, 1969 they registry-mailed a motion for a 30‑day extension to file the printed record; the motion purportedly was mailed by their mailing clerk, Juanito D. Quiachon, at the Makati Post Office. The petitioners actually filed the printed record on February 10, 1969. On February 8, 1969 the respondent moved in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the printed record on time.
On February 25, 1969 the Court of Appeals denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss, granted the petitioners’ registry-mailed motion for extension and admitted the printed record. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration (March 11, 1969), submitting post office certifications and an affidavit of Makati letter‑carrier Flaviano O. Malindog that the registry receipts numbered 0215 and 0216 (stamped January 15, 1969) were not actually posted on that date but were postmarked later (February 7, 1969) and were fabricated at the behest of an interested person. The Court of Appeals, after receiving additional pleadings and affidavits (including Quiachon’s counter‑affidavit and the registry receipts), granted the motion for reconsideration on June 28, 1969, found that the extension motion was not mailed January 15, 1969, dismissed the appeal for failure to file the printed record within the authorized period, required counsel to show cause why he should not be disciplined, and directed the provincial fiscal to investigate Malindog and Quiachon for possible criminal falsification.
The Rizal provincial fiscal later found a prima facie case against Malindog (information for falsification) and dismissed the complaint against Quiachon for lack of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals act without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the printed record on appeal within the prescribed time and in finding that the motion for extension was not mailed on January 15, 1969?
- Was dismissal of the appeal an appropriate sanction where the appeal had been timely perfected but the printed record was filed 24 days late?
- On the merits, was the trial court correct in holding that no enforceable cont...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)