Title
Bracamonte vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-4441
Decision Date
Oct 29, 1952
Petitioners' appeal dismissed for filing record on appeal late; motion for relief improperly sought to set aside judgment, not address appeal dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4441)

Relevant Dates

The initial judgment was delivered on September 3, 1949, and the petitioners were notified of this judgment on September 13, 1949. A motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was filed on September 19, 1949, which was denied on October 7, 1949. The notice of appeal was subsequently filed on October 31, 1949, with the record on appeal submitted on November 7, 1949.

Procedural History

The procedural background reveals that the petitioners intended to appeal the dismissal of their case but filed their record on appeal beyond the statutory timeframe, specifically seven days after the 30-day period when excluding the time during which the motion for a new trial was pending. The respondents opposed the approval of this appeal on these grounds, leading Judge Eduaido Enriquez to dismiss the petitioners' appeal in an order dated November 26, 1949.

Motion for Relief and Subsequent Rulings

On December 7, 1949, the petitioners filed an ex parte motion for relief, asserting that their failure to present key evidence during the original trial was due to "honest mistake and excusable negligence" of their counsel. This claim was based on the assertion that the original Deed of Sale, crucial to their case, was lodged with the Register of Deeds at the time of the trial. However, Judge Jose Teodoro, Sr. denied this motion as well as an amended record on appeal submitted by the petitioners on February 12, 1950.

Certiorari Petition to the Court of Appeals

Following the unfavorable rulings, the petitioners sought certiorari from the Court of Appeals against Judge Teodoro and Justiniani, arguing that the trial court had committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their appeal and the amended record. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled against the petitioners, affirming Judge Teodoro's order and citing the lack of a timely notice of appeal and appeal bond in the additional documents submitted by the petitioners.

Legal Analysis and Court of Appeals Findings

The Court of Appeals upheld that the petitioners failed to properly perfect their appeal, especially in light of their procedural missteps in the submission of documentation and the subsequent motions filed. Citing previous jurisprudence, the court iterated th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.