Heirs of Olango v. Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an application for land registration filed by the petitioners. The respondent court denied this application and ordered the registration of the parcel of land in favor of the private respondents, who were the oppositors in the land registration case. Procedural History: The petitioners sought to appeal the decision of the respondent court. They received the decision on December 29, 1978. On January 25, 1979, they filed a notice of appeal, a cash appeal bond, and a motion for an extension of time to file their typewritten record on appeal. This motion was reset for hearing multiple times due to the absence of the petitioners' counsel. The petitioners filed their typewritten record on appeal on March 1, 1979, a day before the scheduled hearing. The respondent court, on March 2, 1979, disapproved the record on appeal and the appeal bond, citing the absence of petitioners' counsel at the hearing as the primary reason, though the oppositors had argued the record was filed out of time. A motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners on March 22, 1979, was denied by the respondent court on November 21, 1980. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, challenging the respondent court's orders disapproving their record on appeal and appeal bond. They argued that the disapproval was capricious and a grossly erroneous application of rules. The Supreme Court, upon reconsideration, found merit in the petition, granting the motion for reconsideration, setting aside its previous decision, and ordering the respondent court to approve the record on appeal and give due course to the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the record on appeal and appeal bond. Whether the disapproval of the record on appeal based on the non-appearance of counsel at the hearing for approval is a valid ground.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated March 2, 1979, and November 21, 1979, are SET ASIDE. The respondent Court is ordered to approve the record on appeal filed by the petitioners and to give due course to their appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the record on appeal and appeal bond: The Supreme Court found that the disapproval of the appeal was characterized by capriciousness and a grossly erroneous application of rules. The petitioners had filed their notice of appeal and cash appeal bond within the reglementary period. They also filed a motion for extension to file their typewritten record on appeal before the original period expired. The respondent Court itself reset the motion for extension for hearing, which could have led petitioners to believe it would be favorably considered. The record on appeal was filed on March 1, 1979, which was only one day beyond the requested 30-day extension, a delay that should not, by itself, be a reason to deny due course to an appeal, citing Galdo vs. Rosete. The Court held that the respondent Court resorted to an invalid reason for disapproval: the failure of petitioners' counsel to appear at the hearing for approval of the record on appeal. On whether the disapproval based on non-appearance is a valid ground: The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that there is no rule or jurisprudence requiring a record on appeal to be set for hearing for its approval. Citing Olvido vs. Ferraris, the Court held that upon filing, the record on appeal is deemed submitted for approval, modification, or disapproval. Therefore, it was plainly erroneous for the respondent Court to make the non-appearance of counsel at such a hearing a ground for disapproval. The Court also noted that it was a manifest mistake to disapprove a cash appeal bond, as per Section 5, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that any procedural shortcomings should not deprive petitioners of their right to a higher tribunal's review, especially when there is no indication of intent to delay the appeal.
Main Doctrine
The disapproval of a record on appeal based solely on the non-appearance of counsel at the hearing for approval, when there is no rule requiring such hearing, is erroneous and constitutes grave abuse of discretion, depriving parties of their right to appeal.