Case Summary (G.R. No. 198780)
Procedural Background
The appeal has been perfected, and both parties have submitted briefs and memoranda. The case is on the calendar with a judgment voted upon but not yet promulgated. The matter at hand is the request to withdraw the appeal, supported by both the appellant and the appellee, indicating that there is no opposition to the withdrawal.
Dismissal of Appeals
The court recognizes that no specific rule exists regarding the dismissal or withdrawal of appeals, aside from stipulations related to the death of a party. The court has decided to adopt a modern practice, stating that a party wishing to withdraw an appeal must either obtain the consent of the opposing party or demonstrate that such consent is unreasonably withheld. Furthermore, a proper motion must be made to the court, which will then consider the request.
Motion for Withdrawal
In the resolution, the Justices concur that motions to withdraw appeals can be granted based on reasoned considerations of justice. It is emphasized that the absence of established rules for withdrawing appeals indicates the need for careful adjudication on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the court has permitted the withdrawal of the appeal in this instance.
Concurring Opinion
Justice Torres provides a concurring opinion, asserting that legal principles governing the withdrawal of an appeal are well established and do not require new rules. If an appeal is withdrawn after a case has been decided but not promulgated, the court must still maintain the integrity of the process, given that there is no further procedure to follow post-decision. This opinion aligns with the view that while one may withdraw an appeal before adjudication, once a decision is reached, implications of that decision must be respected.
Legal Principles on Appeal Withdrawal
The opinion further elucidates that in civil cases, the withdrawal of an appeal necessitates the consent of the adverse party. In contrast, in criminal cases, if a decision has been voted upon and is favorable to the appellant (absolutory), the court m
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 198780)
Case Overview
- The case involves Dee See Choon as the plaintiff and appellant, and J. S. Stanley, the Insular Collector of Customs, as the defendant and appellee.
- The decision was rendered by Justice Malcolm, with concurrence from Justices Arellano, Carson, Araullo, Street, Avancena, and Fisher.
- The case was decided on April 10, 1918, and is recorded in 38 Phil. 208.
Procedural Background
- The appeal was perfected, and both parties submitted briefs and memoranda.
- Although the case was placed on the calendar and voted upon, the judgment had not yet been promulgated at the time of the request to withdraw the appeal.
- The appellant, represented by her attorney, requested to withdraw the appeal, which was supported by the Attorney-General on behalf of the appellee.
Court's Rule on Withdrawal of Appeals
- There is no specific rule governing the dismissal or withdrawal of appeals in this court, except in cases of a party's death.
- The co