Bartolo v. Maliwanag
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from Civil Case No. Q-3927 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, wherein the plaintiff, Gregoria Bartolo, sought a legal remedy against the defendant, Primo G. Maliwanag. Following a decision by the court that was unfavorable to the plaintiff, the underlying dispute centered on the contents and approval of the record on appeal. 2. Procedural History: After the trial court rendered a decision, petitioner Gregoria Bartolo, as plaintiff, filed a record on appeal. The defendant objected to its approval, citing the omission of several documents, including a motion to dismiss, its opposition, and subsequent pleadings, as well as a court order denying the motion to dismiss. The trial court ordered the inclusion of some documents but denied the inclusion of others. The petitioner filed multiple motions for reconsideration, all of which were denied by the respondent judge. 3. The Petition: Aggrieved by the repeated denials of her motions for reconsideration and the respondent judge's orders regarding the record on appeal, the petitioner filed an original action for mandamus with the Supreme Court. The petition sought to compel the respondent judge to exclude a specific manifestation from the record on appeal and to include the order denying the motion to dismiss, and thereafter to approve and certify the record on appeal. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition to be without legal basis, noting the petitioner's failure to present an amended record on appeal and the significant delay in filing the mandamus action.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in his orders concerning the contents of the record on appeal. Whether the petition for mandamus is the proper remedy under the circumstances.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is dismissed. The Court found no legal basis for the petition, noting the petitioner's failure to present an amended record on appeal in accordance with the rules and the undue delay in filing the mandamus action, suggesting a purpose to delay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of the Respondent Judge's Discretion in the Record on Appeal: The Court held that the matters to be included in a record on appeal are addressed to the sound discretion of the judge who heard the case. This judge is best aware of the questions and issues that have been raised and might be raised on appeal. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge in his orders regarding the inclusion or exclusion of documents in the record on appeal. The judge's decision to include certain documents and exclude others was within his prerogative as the presiding officer of the case. On the Propriety of the Mandamus Action: The Court found the petition for mandamus to be without legal basis. Firstly, the petitioner did not present an amended record on appeal in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 41, which outlines the procedure for amending records on appeal. Secondly, the petitioner waited six months before filing the action for mandamus, which the Court considered a belated action and indicative of a purpose to delay the proceedings. The Court noted that such delays are not countenanced in the administration of justice, and the remedy of mandamus is not intended to cure procedural lapses or to circumvent the rules on appeals.
Main Doctrine
The inclusion of pleadings and orders in a record on appeal is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge who is aware of the questions and issues raised. Successive motions for reconsideration on the same grounds are superfluous and do not warrant further consideration by the court.