Narito v. Carrido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Antonio Narito was the defendant in a civil case before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur, which rendered judgment against him. He appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). Procedural History: Narito paid the appellate docket fee but requested to file a typewritten or mimeographed record on appeal, claiming to be old and poor. The CA denied this request in a resolution dated February 6, 1967, and subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied, reiterating the order to file a printed record on appeal. The Petition: Narito filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the CA resolutions. He also prayed to be allowed to litigate as a pauper before the Supreme Court, which was granted. He alleged he was 67 years old, poor, with a family to support, and his property (a two-hectare coconut land assessed at P200) was devastated by typhoons, making it difficult to raise P250 for printing costs. He invoked the constitutional right to free access to courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioner's motion to litigate as a pauper and in requiring the filing of a printed record on appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals correctly denied the petitioner's motions to file a typewritten or mimeographed record on appeal and to litigate as a pauper, as such petitions must be filed with the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that under Section 16, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the trial court—and not the appellate court—is the proper forum to ventilate a claim to be allowed to litigate as a pauper. The provision explicitly states that a party desiring to appeal as a pauper must establish to the satisfaction of the trial court that they are unable to pay the expenses of the appeal and that the case is of sufficient importance to be reviewed. The Court emphasized that determining whether a litigant is truly 'impecunious' is a question of fact which can best be determined by a trial court where evidence can be formally presented and evaluated. Citing Alcantara v. Tuazon y de la Paz, the Court reiterated that it is not the function of appellate courts to examine the facts and law for the first time to pass upon the requirement of poverty. In this case, there was no evidence that Narito had even asked the Court of First Instance for pauper status, or that such status stood unrevoked. Finally, the Court noted that the respondent provided uncontroverted evidence that the petitioner possessed land and had the financial capacity to pay significant attorney's fees, further undermining the merit of his claim to poverty.
Main Doctrine
A petition to be allowed to litigate as a pauper must be filed with the trial court, not the appellate court, as the determination of poverty is a question of fact best assessed by the trial court.