Vda. de Sayman v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: A sea disaster on December 22, 1959, involving a vessel owned by respondent Carlos A. Go Thong & Company, resulted in the loss of five lives. Petitioners, representing the heirs of the deceased passengers, filed separate civil actions for damages against the vessel owner, alleging breach of contract. The Court of First Instance of Davao consolidated these cases and rendered a decision holding the respondent liable for P53,715.00. 2. Procedural History: Following the trial court's decision, the respondent filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. The respondent then filed a record on appeal, but it was objected to by the petitioners for omissions. The trial court ordered the respondent to amend the record, but the respondent failed to do so within the prescribed period, leading to a granted motion for execution. A subsequent petition for relief filed by the respondent was denied by the trial court. The respondent appealed this denial, and in the Court of Appeals, sought to include the record of the main case in the appeal of the denial of the petition for relief. The Court of Appeals granted this motion and denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the elevation of the first part of the record on appeal (the main case) and in denying their motion to dismiss the appeal. They contend that the appeal was filed out of time, that prior orders on similar motions created res judicata, and that the appeal was frivolous and dilatory. The core issue is whether an appeal from the denial of a petition for relief under Rule 38 should include the record of the main case, allowing the appellate court to review the merits of the original judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the elevation of the First Part of the record on appeal and denying the motion to dismiss the appeal. Whether the appeal in the main action was filed outside the reglementary period; and whether the trial court acted correctly in denying the petition for relief, and whether the allegations in the petition for relief were sufficient. Whether the excuse offered by the private respondent for failing to file its amended record on appeal was valid. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the discretion of the trial court in relation to the dismissal of the appeal for failure to elevate the record on time. On the scope of an appeal from a denial of a petition for relief. On avoiding a two-stage proceeding.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the Court of Appeals to order the elevation of the First Part of the record on appeal and deny the motion to dismiss: The Supreme Court held that the pertinent issue was whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that it was not concerned with the issue of whether the appeal in the main action was filed outside the reglementary period, as the filing of a petition for relief implies that the judgment in the main case had already become final and executory. The Court also stated that it was not called upon to decide whether the trial court correctly denied the petition for relief, the sufficiency of its allegations, or the validity of the excuse for failing to file the amended record on appeal. The core inquiry was whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in authorizing the elevation of the First Part of the record on appeal. On whether the appeal in the main action was filed outside the reglementary period; and whether the trial court acted correctly in denying the petition for relief, and whether the allegations in the petition for relief were sufficient: The Court emphasized that a judgment denying relief under Rule 38 is subject to appeal, and in the course of such appeal, a party may also assail the judgment on the merits. This is explicitly provided for in the Rules of Court, which allow a party to "also assail judgment on the merits, upon the ground that it is not supported by the evidence or it is contrary to law." On whether the excuse offered by the private respondent for failing to file its amended record on appeal was valid: The Supreme Court held that it was not called upon to decide whether the trial court correctly denied the petition for relief, the sufficiency of its allegations, or the validity of the excuse for failing to file the amended record on appeal. On whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the discretion of the trial court in relation to the dismissal of the appeal for failure to elevate the record on time: Regarding the petitioners' argument that the record on appeal contained no showing of timely perfection and was not elevated within thirty days, the Court noted that the doctrine in Government of the Philippines vs. Antonio had been abandoned. Furthermore, the dismissal of an appeal for failure to elevate the record on appeal within the prescribed period is discretionary, not mandatory. The petitioners failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in refusing to dismiss the appeal on this ground. The Court observed that the delay was attributable to various incidents arising from the trial court's orders, which were subsequently set aside by the Court of Appeals in the certiorari proceedings. On the scope of an appeal from a denial of a petition for relief: The petitioners' stance, limiting the appeal to the correctness of the denial of the petition for relief, was contrary to the clear mandate of the rule and contravened practical reasons. The Court reasoned that a petition for relief is a second opportunity for an aggrieved party to ask for a new trial, and the appellate court must be apprised of the merit of the case to determine if granting relief would not be a useless ceremony. Therefore, the record of the main case must be elevated to allow the appellate court to assess if the judgment complained of is "not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law." On avoiding a two-stage proceeding: The Court highlighted that if the appeal from the denial of the petition for relief were to be decided favorably to the appellant, and then a separate appeal from the main case were to follow, it would result in a cumbersome and time-consuming two-stage proceeding. This is precisely what the rule seeks to avoid by prescribing that in an appeal from the denial of a petition for relief, the appellant may, in the same proceeding, assail the judgment on the merits. This approach aligns with the purpose of the Rules of Court to assist parties in obtaining a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."
Main Doctrine
An appeal from a denial of a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court allows the appellate court to also assail the judgment on the merits, requiring the elevation of the record on appeal of the main case.