Roska v. Ramolete
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from the Cebu Fire Damage Commission's filing of an action for interpleader or petition for apportionment and/or declaratory relief. This action was initiated on October 16, 1959, to determine the proper recipients and proportions of payments related to fire damage claims belonging to Fulgencio Banico Kho, which had been attached, levied for third-party claims, and garnished by various creditors. A compromise agreement was reached by the parties on December 10, 1960, outlining the apportionment of these funds among the creditors, including petitioners Francisco and Apolonia Roska, and respondent Fortunata Gabrintina. 2. Procedural History: Following the initial compromise agreement, respondent Fortunata Gabrintina filed an urgent motion on December 15, 1960, requesting an amendment to increase her share from P100.00 to P350.00. On December 17, 1960, the respondent Judge issued an amendatory order, without the petitioners' knowledge, reducing their allotment to P3,050.00 and increasing Gabrintina's share. The petitioners received this order on December 24, 1960, and immediately filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the judge lacked authority to amend the compromise without all parties' consent. This motion was denied on January 9, 1961, and the petitioners received the denial on January 11, 1961. The petitioners subsequently filed their notice of appeal on January 12, 1961, their appeal bond on February 7, 1961, and their record on appeal on February 10, 1961. Respondent Gabrintina then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which the respondent Judge granted in an order dated March 9, 1961. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for mandamus filed under Section 15, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners seek to compel the respondent Judge to approve their appeal, which was dismissed by the lower court. The core arguments presented by the petitioners are that their appeal was filed within the statutory period, as the 30-day period to appeal commenced on January 12, 1961, following their receipt of the order denying their motion for reconsideration on January 11, 1961, and expired on February 10, 1961, the same day they filed their record on appeal. They also contend that their withdrawal of a portion of the funds did not constitute an abandonment of their right to appeal, as they had indicated an intent to return the money, and that the failure to serve copies of the appeal documents on the adverse party on the same day of filing does not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal of petitioners was filed within the statutory period. Whether the withdrawal of a portion of the allotted amount constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal. Whether the failure to serve copies of the record on appeal to the adverse party on the same day of filing constitutes a ground for dismissal.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The respondent Judge is ordered to give due course to petitioners' appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal: The Court held that the appeal was filed within the statutory period. The order denying the motion for reconsideration was received by the petitioners on January 11, 1961. According to Section 1, Rule 28 of the Rules of Court, the 30-day period to appeal commenced on January 12, 1961. Counting 30 days from January 12, 1961, the period would expire on February 10, 1961, which was the exact date the petitioners filed their record on appeal. Therefore, the appeal was perfected on time. On the alleged waiver of the right to appeal: The Court found the contention that petitioners' withdrawal of P3,280.85 constituted abandonment and waiver of their right to appeal to be devoid of merit. The amount withdrawn was the original allotment, not the reduced amount from the amendatory order. Furthermore, petitioners had orally manifested their intention to return the money once other creditors returned theirs, indicating that the withdrawal was merely to protect their rights and interests, not to comply with the order being appealed. This clearly showed no intent to abandon their right to appeal. On the failure to serve copies of the record on appeal: The Court ruled that the failure to serve copies of the record on appeal to the adverse party on the same day of filing is not a sufficient ground to dismiss the appeal. Citing Arcega vs. Dizon and Philippine Resources Development Corporation vs. Narvasa, et al., the Court stated that such non-compliance is considered merely directory and does not impair the right of appeal when it does not adversely affect any substantial right of the adverse party. The Court emphasized that failure to serve copies is not a specific ground for dismissal under Section 1 of Rule 52.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a record on appeal within the statutory period, even if copies were not served on the adverse party on the same day, does not constitute a ground for dismissal if such non-compliance does not impair any substantial right of the adverse party, as the requirement is considered merely directory in such instances.