Olvido v. Ferraris
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mamerto Ferraris filed a complaint against Soledad Olvido and Venancio Albaniel for the recovery of a parcel of land. Petitioners filed their answer. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Ferraris. Procedural History: Petitioners received the decision on July 20, 1950. They filed a motion for reconsideration on August 12, 1950, which was denied on August 29, 1950. Petitioners received the denial on September 1, 1950. On September 2, 1950, petitioners filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal with the clerk of court. However, they did not set the record on appeal for hearing and approval until September 12, 1950, by which time the 30-day period for appeal had expired. The respondent judge denied the approval of the record on appeal due to this late filing for hearing. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to entertain their appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of the petitioners to set the record on appeal for hearing within the 30-day reglementary period is fatal to the perfection of their appeal.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is granted. The order of the respondent judge dated September 30, 1950, denying the approval and admission of the record on appeal is set aside, and said respondent is directed to give due course to the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erroneously applied the rules for general motions to the specialized procedure for records on appeal. The respondent judge had relied on Manakil and Tison v. Revilla and Tuaño, which held that a motion without a notice of hearing is a mere piece of paper, but the Court clarified that this ruling applies only to motions in general and not to records on appeal. Under Rule 41, Section 3, an appellant's only obligation is to file the notice, bond, and record, and serve copies to the adverse party. The Court reiterated the doctrine in Cuento v. Paredes (40 Phil. 346), which established that under Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the predecessor to Rule 41), it is the judge who must provide reasonable notice to both parties for the allowance or correction of the record. There is no provision in Rule 41 requiring the appellant to set the record on appeal for hearing as required for motions under Rule 26. Therefore, because the petitioners filed their appeal documents on the 24th day, their appeal was perfected within the reglementary 30-day period. Consequently, the respondent judge committed an error in dismissing the appeal based on the timing of the hearing request.
Main Doctrine
The appellant is not required to set the record on appeal for hearing within the reglementary period; the filing of the record on appeal with the clerk of court is sufficient submission for approval, modification, or disapproval by the trial judge.