Cumplido v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a Civil Case No. 1959 filed in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, concerning a claim for Quieting of Title. The initial judgment favored defendant Simeona Cumplido, declaring her to have a better right over the entire property in litigation and ordering the plaintiffs, Presentacion Mendoza and Andres Mendoza, to vacate the premises. However, the plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration, which the lower court granted, amending its decision to award one-half of the property to Presentacion Mendoza and ordering the cancellation of Cumplido's title to that portion. 2. Procedural History: Following the amended decision, Simeona Cumplido attempted to perfect her appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal and depositing a cash appeal bond. She also filed a motion for an extension of time to file a Record on Appeal. Due to the absence of a presiding judge, these motions were not immediately acted upon. Subsequently, Cumplido filed her Record on Appeal, but the opposing party, Presentacion Mendoza, filed an opposition, arguing that the appeal was not perfected due to non-service of the cash appeal bond and the late filing of the Record on Appeal. The trial court denied the approval of the Record on Appeal and dismissed the appeal, subsequently denying Cumplido's motion for reconsideration and ordering the execution of the judgment. 3. The Petition: Simeona Cumplido filed the instant petition for Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction, seeking to compel the Presiding Judge of the CFI of Bulacan to give due course to her appeal and to restrain the implementation of the order of execution. She argued that the respondent judge unlawfully neglected his duty and/or gravely abused his discretion in denying the appeal. The core of the petition hinges on whether the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period, specifically addressing the issues of the cash appeal bond's service and the timely filing of the Record on Appeal, as well as the validity of the extension request.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal was perfected on time. Whether the non-service of the cash appeal bond upon the adverse party affects the perfection of an appeal. Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying the approval of the Record on Appeal and ordering the execution of the judgment.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was not perfected on time, and therefore, the respondent Judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Whether the appeal was perfected on time): The Supreme Court found that the record on appeal was not filed within the prescribed period. The rules require the record on appeal to be presented within thirty (30) days after receipt of the order or decision. The last day for filing was May 28, 1962. Although a motion for extension was filed three days prior, it was not acted upon due to the absence of a judge. The Court emphasized that counsel should have ascertained the status of the motion and could have presented it to the Justice of the Peace, who is authorized to act on such interlocutory matters. The petitioner could not assume the motion would be granted. Even if the extension were granted, the record on appeal was filed on June 13, 1962, which was one day late from the requested fifteen-day extension that would have expired on June 12, 1962. Therefore, the appeal was not perfected on time. On Issue 2 (Whether the non-service of the cash appeal bond upon the adverse party affects the perfection of an appeal): The Supreme Court reiterated the settled rule that the circumstance of non-service of a cash appeal bond upon the adverse party does not affect the perfection of an appeal, provided such appeal bond is presented within the prescribed period. This aspect of the opposition was therefore not a valid ground for dismissal. On Issue 3 (Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying the approval of the Record on Appeal and ordering the execution of the judgment): The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The denial of the approval of the Record on Appeal was based on the failure to perfect the appeal within the reglementary period. Since the appeal was not perfected on time, the trial court retained jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution. The petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to the approval of the record on appeal, which is a prerequisite for a writ of mandamus. The failure to comply with the rules on perfecting an appeal, specifically the timely filing of the record on appeal, justified the dismissal of the appeal and the subsequent order of execution.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus will not prosper if the petitioner fails to establish a clear legal right to the approval of the record on appeal and is not entitled to the writ of mandamus. The failure to file the record on appeal within the reglementary period, even with a motion for extension that was not acted upon, constitutes a fatal defect.