Reñosa v. Yatco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. filed an ejectment action against Guillermo Reñosa. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City ruled in favor of the company, ordering Reñosa to surrender possession of the land, remove any structures, and pay monthly rentals from February 6, 1957, until possession was restored. 2. Procedural History: Reñosa received the decision on May 11, 1959. He filed a motion for reconsideration on June 10, 1959, which was denied, with notice of the denial received on September 7, 1959. On September 8, 1959, the last day to perfect an appeal, Reñosa filed a notice of appeal, tendered a P60.00 appeal bond, and requested a five-day extension to file his record on appeal. The clerk of court refused the bond, stating it was short by P0.30 in commission fees, and instructed the messenger to return the next day with the full amount. The messenger returned on September 9, 1959, with a check for P60.30 dated September 8, 1959, which was accepted. The trial court later granted the extension but dismissed the appeal, finding the notice and bond were filed one day late. Reñosa's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to give due course to Reñosa's appeal. Reñosa argues that he substantially complied with the rules by tendering the appeal bond and notice of appeal on the last day of the reglementary period. He contends that the clerk of court's refusal to accept the bond due to a minor deficiency in commission fees, which was rectified the following day with a check dated the previous day, should not prejudice his right to appeal. The petition asserts that the dismissal of the appeal was improper under the circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal as being filed out of time when the statutory appeal bond of P60.00 was timely tendered but refused by the Clerk of Court for lack of a P0.30 commission fee.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The trial court is ordered to give due course to the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sole Issue: The Supreme Court held that the trial court's dismissal of the appeal was improper because Reñosa had substantially complied with the rules. Under Section 5, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the appeal bond is fixed at P60.00 unless the court orders otherwise, and the rule does not require the payment of a commission fee as a condition for the bond's validity. Since Reñosa actually tendered the P60.00 on the last day of the reglementary period, the Clerk of Court erred in returning the money simply because it was short by P0.30 for a non-statutory fee. The Court reasoned that the proper procedure for the Clerk of Court would have been to retain the P60.00, issue a receipt, and request the additional P0.30 later, as that amount is not part of the bond itself. Applying the precedent in Contreras v. Dinglasan (79 Phil. 42), the Court emphasized that a mistake committed by a clerk of court should not be blamed on the defendant or result in the forfeiture of the right to appeal. Ultimately, because the tender of the statutory amount was timely, the appeal was deemed perfected within the reglementary period, and the subsequent payment of the commission fee on the following day did not render the appeal tardy.
Main Doctrine
A substantial compliance with the requirements for the perfection of an appeal, particularly the filing of the appeal bond, should be given due course, and the appeal should not be dismissed due to minor deficiencies attributable to the clerk of court's error, especially when the appellant acted in good faith and with diligence.