National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority v. Montejo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The City of Zamboanga filed a complaint against the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), alleging that NAWASA had unlawfully taken possession of the Zamboanga Waterworks and Sewerage System. The City claimed ownership and operation of the system and asserted that its treasurer and auditor, without legal authority, transferred the system's properties, valued at P532,680.43, to NAWASA pursuant to Republic Act No. 1383. The City sought a declaration that Republic Act No. 1383 was unconstitutional, the return of its properties, or compensation for their value, and preliminary injunction to prevent NAWASA from taking control of a P15,536.20 cash balance. 2. Procedural History: The City of Zamboanga filed its complaint on March 12, 1956. NAWASA initially filed a motion to dismiss but later answered, upholding the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1383. Subsequently, the City moved for judgment based on a Supreme Court ruling declaring Republic Act No. 1383 unconstitutional regarding expropriation without just compensation. The trial court, on July 30, 1960, ordered NAWASA to surrender the properties and render an accounting. NAWASA filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal. The trial court, on October 8, 1960, disallowed the record on appeal unless NAWASA incorporated a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum and the memorandum itself. NAWASA's motion for reconsideration was denied on January 14, 1961, with the court reiterating its order to include the said pleadings in the record on appeal. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition under Rule 41, section 15, of the Rules of Court, filed by NAWASA to compel the respondent judge to allow its record on appeal. NAWASA argues that the trial court erred in disallowing the record on appeal for failure to incorporate a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum and the memorandum itself. NAWASA contends that these documents are not pleadings relating to the appealed order and are not essential for the appellate court's review, as per the purpose of a record on appeal which is to present facts, not arguments of counsel.
Issue(s)
Whether a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum and the memorandum itself should be incorporated in the record on appeal as a prerequisite for its allowance, or if their omission is a lawful ground for disallowing the record on appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of NAWASA, ordering the respondent court to allow the record on appeal. The Court held that the motion for extension and the memorandum were not required to be incorporated in the record on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum and the memorandum itself should not be incorporated in the record on appeal. Section 6 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that a record on appeal "shall include the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken, and, in chronological order, copies of all pleadings, petitions, motions and all interlocutory orders relating to the appealed order or judgment." The Court, citing its previous ruling in Aliño vs. Villamor, clarified that the fundamental purpose of a record on appeal is to present, in an intelligible form, only the facts necessary for the appellate court to review the rulings, orders, or judgments that are being appealed. Arguments made by counsel, whether in the form of a memorandum or other similar submissions, are considered "wholly foreign and irrelevant" to this specific purpose. Therefore, a memorandum, being a formal or written summary of arguments of counsel, does not constitute a factual pleading essential for incorporation in a record on appeal, and the trial court's insistence on its inclusion was an error. Failure to incorporate such argumentative pleadings is not a lawful ground for disallowing an otherwise proper record on appeal.
Main Doctrine
A memorandum, being a written summary of arguments, and a motion for extension of time to file it, are not pleadings relating to the appealed order and thus are not required to be incorporated in the record on appeal for its allowance.