Republic v. Montejo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On November 23, 1960, Lim Go filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City. The City Attorney appeared for the Solicitor General, and on December 16, 1961, the respondent judge granted the petition. Subsequently, on February 22, 1964, the respondent judge declared that Lim Go had met all requirements of Republic Act 530, ordered the registration of the earlier decision, and authorized Lim Go to take his oath of allegiance, which he did on the same day. 2. Procedural History: The City Attorney, representing the Solicitor General, appealed the February 22, 1964 order on March 12, 1964, citing that it was contrary to law and evidence. The appeal was perfected on time, and the petitioner sought extensions to file the record on appeal. Despite multiple extensions totaling over four months, the record on appeal was not filed. On July 22, 1964, the respondent court dismissed the appeal, deeming the government negligent and having abandoned its intention to appeal. A motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction. The petitioner contends that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal, which was perfected on time. The petition seeks to compel the respondent judge to approve the record on appeal and elevate it to the Supreme Court for review, and to restrain Lim Go from exercising the rights of a Philippine citizen pending determination of the case. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction on October 22, 1964.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Government's appeal for failure to file its record on appeal within the extended period. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to approve and elevate the record on appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the order appealed from is affirmed. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal: The Court held that the respondent court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal must be perfected within thirty days from notice of the order or judgment, although the period may be extended by the trial court based on justifiable reasons. In this case, the petitioner was afforded ample time, with three extensions totaling four months and ten days, to file its record on appeal. The reasons provided for the extensions, such as needing time to study evidence from national agencies, were deemed irrelevant to the preparation of a record on appeal, which is a relatively simple task. The Court found that these reasons demonstrated either culpable ignorance of the Rules of Court or a desire to harass the private respondent. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal was a proper exercise of the respondent court's discretion. On the issue of mandamus as a remedy: The Court found no indication of abuse of judicial discretion that would justify the intervention of the Supreme Court through mandamus. The remedy of mandamus is available to compel the performance of a ministerial duty or to correct an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. Since the respondent judge's dismissal of the appeal was found to be a valid exercise of discretion, mandamus was not warranted.
Main Doctrine
Motions for extension of time to file a record on appeal are addressed primarily to the sound discretion of the trial court, and such discretion is deemed correctly exercised when ample time has been afforded for filing, and the reasons for extensions are either flimsy or demonstrate a desire to harass the adverse party.