Title
Velayo vs. Shell Company of the Philippine Islands, Ltd.
Case
G.R. No. L-8883
Decision Date
Jul 14, 1959
Intervenors' appeal denied; no evidence presented, petition for relief invalid, and main case resolved by Supreme Court, rendering appeal moot.
appeal
trial
evidence
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8883)

Factual Background and Initiation of the Main Case

On December 17, 1948, Alfredo M. Velayo, as assignee of the insolvent Commercial Airlines, Inc., instituted an action against Shell Company of the Philippine Islands, Ltd., in the Court of First Instance of Manila for injunction and damages (Civil Case No. 6966).

On October 26, 1951, Alfonso Z. Sycip, Paul Sycip, and Yek Trading Corporation filed a complaint in intervention. On November 14, 1951, Mabasa & Company filed an intervention complaint. The case then proceeded to trial, at which the plaintiff presented evidence, but none was presented in behalf of intervenors. The trial court rendered a decision dismissing both the plaintiff’s complaint and those filed by the intervenors.

Trial Court Judgment and Intervenors’ Lack of Trial Proof

The trial court’s dismissal reflected the evidentiary posture of the case: although plaintiff adduced evidence, the intervenors did not present any evidence to support their claims during the trial. As later emphasized, this evidentiary deficiency bore directly on whether the intervenors had any practical “right or reason” to appeal.

Filing of Notice of Appeal and Early Appellate Processing

On March 31, 1954, counsel for plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and the record on appeal, acting “in behalf only of plaintiff,” even if counsel also represented the intervenors. The court approved the appeal steps and directed its clerk to forward the record on appeal to the Supreme Court, together with all the evidence in the case. That instruction was complied with.

On August 31, 1954, the Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court notified counsel for plaintiff that the record and evidence had already been received and that counsel should file a brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice. On November 2, 1954, counsel filed the brief for the appellants.

Intervenors’ Late Effort to Become Co-Appellants and Their First Attempt Before the Supreme Court

On November 6, 1954, roughly seven (7) months after judgment had become final as against the intervenors, and four (4) days after counsel for appellants had submitted the brief, counsel for the intervenors filed in the Supreme Court a petition for correction of the record on appeal. The object was to enable insertion of the intervenors’ names as appellants. The petition asserted, among other grounds, that the omission occurred due to a typographical mistake, allegedly committed while the attorney in charge was on vacation.

Counsel for defendant vigorously opposed the petition, arguing that it would serve no purpose because the intervenors had not presented any supporting evidence aside from the claimed absence of counsel, which could not justify omission of the intervenors as appellants.

On November 12, 1954, the Court denied the petition. Counsel moved for reconsideration, but the Court denied it.

Post-Denial Remedies: Rule 38 Petition in the Lower Court and Rejection for Being Out of Time

After denial of the petition for correction and the motion for reconsideration, counsel for the intervenors filed, on November 19, 1954, in the lower court a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Counsel reiterated substantially the same grounds used in the earlier Supreme Court petition for correction. The lower court denied the Rule 38 petition on November 27, 1954, holding that it was filed outside the reglementary period fixed in Rule 38.

Counsel sought reconsideration, but it was denied. The court explained that “no judgment or order has been rendered, nor any other proceeding taken by this Court on the right of the intervenors to appeal.”

Further Motions to Amend the Record and the Final Trial Court Order Challenged on Appeal

On December 20, 1954, counsel filed again a motion to amend the record on appeal based on grounds identical to those previously raised before the Supreme Court and in the Rule 38 petition. On December 27, 1954, the lower court denied the motion.

On January 6, 1955, counsel filed a petition for relief from the December 27, 1954 order. Defendant opposed it. On February 5, 1955, the lower court held a hearing on both the petition and the opposition. On February 9, 1955, the petition was denied on the ground that the case was already before the Supreme Court on appeal.

It was from this denial (of the petition for relief from the December 27, 1954 order) that counsel for intervenors took the appeal now before the Court.

The Parties’ Positions on Appeal and Procedural Barriers

The intervenors’ appeal sought, in substance, the inclusion of the intervenors as appellants in the appeal from the decision in the main case. The Court noted that the intervenors’ arguments were the same as those previously invoked in the petition for correction. It further observed that the intervenors’ effort had already been denied twice: first by the Court’s resolution of November 12, 1954 denying the petition for correction, and second by the Court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration of that resolution.

The Court also stressed the absence of any substantive basis for the intervenors’ participation on appeal because they had presented no evidence during trial in support of their complaint. It characterized their contemplated appeal as pro-forma and, in any event, noted the untimeliness of their attempt to amend the record only seven (7) months after the judgment became final against them.

With respect to the Rule 38 petition, the Court held that intervenors had no right to seek relief because the lower court order complained of was issued upon a motion filed by the intervenors themselves. It explained that the “fraud” contemplated in Rule 38 refers to fraud by the adverse party, and that such fraud could not be attributed to the Court.

Ruling and Disposition

The Court held that the instant appeal had no merit. It affirmed the order appealed from and imposed costs against the appellants.

The Court further held that the intervenors’ appeal had become moot because the main case had already been decided by the Court on the merits on October 31, 1956, where the Court reversed the lower court’s decision and awarded damages to plaintiff—the very relief the intervenors sought by joining the appeal as co-appellants.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rested on several procedural and substantive grounds grounded in the case’s procedural history:

First, it treated the intervenors’ relief as already finally foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s earlier resolutions denying correction of the record and the reconsideration of that denial. The intervenors pursued the same grounds again, which the Court characterized as having already been resolved.

Second, the Court held that the intervenors lacked a “right or reason to appeal,” given that they did not present evidence during the trial that supported their intervention claims. The Court reasoned that, absent such proof, the intervenors’ appeal would serve only a formal purpose.

Third, the Court addressed the intervenors’ timing. It held that the intervenors’ attempt to amend the record occurred seven months after the judgment became final against them, underscoring the procedural lateness of the effort.

Fourth, the Court rejected the Rule 38 strategy. It held that intervenors could not invoke Rule 38 to obtain relief from an order entered on their own motion, an

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms