Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1942 > September 1942 Decisions > G.R. No. 48813 September 2, 1942 - ARISTON BUSTAMANTE v. EMILIANO T. TIRONA, ET AL.

073 Phil 665:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 48813. September 2, 1942.]

ARISTON BUSTAMANTE, Petitioner, v. EMILIANO T. TIRONA, Judge of Court of First Instance of Manila, and PERFECTO BUSTAMANTE, Respondents.

Avelino & Yatco, for Petitioner.

Rafael L. Arcega, for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; FAILURE TO FILE RECORD ON APPEAL ON TIME ON ACCOUNT OF "FORCE MAJEURE" ; MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE IN THE ABSENCE OF DUE DILIGENCE. — Under Rule 41 (section 3) of the Rules of Court, the record on appeal must be served upon the adverse party and filed with the court within 30 days from notice of the order or judgment appealed from, deducting the time during which a motion for reconsideration may have been pending. The petitioner having admittedly tendered his record on appeal after the lapse of the thirty-day reglementary period, it was not mandatory but, if at all, purely discretionary in the respondent judge to approve or disapprove it in the interest of justice. Who would justify noncompliance of a legal requirement on account of force majeure or unavoidable accident, should exercise due diligence to supply the omission as soon as possible after the justifying circumstance has ceased.


D E C I S I O N


OZAETA, J.:


This is an original petition for mandamus, with preliminary injunction, to compel the respondent judge to approve the record on appeal tendered by the petitioner in special proceedings Nos. 51591, 52813, 54210, and 55888 of the Court of First Instance of Manila — the said respondent having disallowed it on the ground that it was filed out of time.

The petitioner, as administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Bernabe Bustamante (case No. 51591) and special administrator of the testate estate of the deceased Rufina Arevalo de Bustamante (case No. 52813), intends to appeal to this Court from the orders of the lower court dated September 8 and November 8, 1941, authorizing the sale of certain property of the deceased spouses. He received notice of the last-mentioned order on November 12, 1941. Three days later, that is to say, on November 15, he filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on December 16, and notice of the denial was served on him on December 23. On December 27, he filed the notice of appeal, but did not file the record on appeal until March 16, 1942 nor did he actually serve copy of said record on appeal on opposing counsel until May 26, 1942.

Under Rule 41 (section 3) of the Rules f Court, the petitioner should have served upon the adverse party and filed with the court the notice of appeal, the appeal bond, and the record on appeal within thirty days from November 12, 1941, deducting the time during which the motion for reconsideration had been pending; in other words, he should have perfected the appeal on January 19, 1942. Section 13 of the same Rule 41 provides that where the record on appeal is filed out of time the appeal shall be dismissed.

The petitioner, however, tried to justify his failure to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period by attributing it "to unforeseen event of the war then taking place." But the respondent judge in effect declared that the petitioner did not exercise reasonable diligence under the circumstances, pointing out "that the office of the Clerk of Court was reopened on January 23, 1942, and the Judges of the Court of First Instance of Manila were appointed under the actual administration on February 24, 1942, since which date all the Branches of this Court have resumed functioning." The respondent judge said that there was an unjustifiable delay in the filing of the record on appeal on March 16 and in the service of copy thereof on May 26, 1942.

The petitioner having admittedly tendered his record on appeal after the lapse of the thirty-day reglementary period, it was not mandatory but, if at all, purely discretionary in the respondent judge to approve or disapprove it in the interest of justice. In order that mandamus may lie in such a case, it must be shown that the respondent judge has manifestly and grossly abused his discretion in the premises. We find no such abuse of discretion in the instant case to warrant this Court’s interposition and the exercise of its coercive power. On the contrary, we find sufficient the reason given by the respondent judge for disallowing the petitioner’s record on appeal. Who would justify noncompliance of a legal requirement on account of force majeure or unavoidable accident, should exercise due diligence to supply the omission as soon as possible after the justifying circumstance has ceased. The petitioner failed to do so.

Wherefore, the petition for mandamus is denied and the writ of preliminary injunction issued herein by this Court against the respondents is hereby dissolved, with costs. So ordered.

Yulo, C.J., Moran, Paras and Bocobo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1942 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48813 September 2, 1942 - ARISTON BUSTAMANTE v. EMILIANO T. TIRONA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 665

  • G.R. No. 48109 September 7, 1942 - NATALIA BELTRAN v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 48227 September 9, 1942 - DEMETRIO ENCARNACION v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    073 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 47769 September 11, 1942 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE V. RAMON, ET AL.

    073 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. 48396 September 11, 1942 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX BENITEZ

    073 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 48110 September 16, 1942 - ANIANO BIRON v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. 48652 September 16, 1942 - LUCIA BERNABE, ET AL. v. DOMINGO L. VERGARA

    073 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 48336 September 21, 1942 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE MAPOY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 48224 September 23, 1942 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENEROSO MACEDA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 47662 September 30, 1942 - JOAQUIN V. BASS v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 47899 September 30, 1942 - ALFONSO MANAHAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    073 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 48143 September 30, 1942 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PILUS SUBANO

    073 Phil 692

  • G.R. No. 48290 September 30, 1942 - JULIAN MEDIANTE, ET AL. v. VALENTIN ROSABAL

    073 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 48429 September 30, 1942 - MACAMPON DE PORKAN, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA NAVARRO

    073 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 48498 September 30, 1942 - SALVADOR G. TUMANG v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    073 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. 48671 September 30, 1942 - LEVY HERMANOS v. MONICA DE GOROSPE, ET AL.

    073 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. 48695 September 30, 1942 - ANTONIO GONZALEZ v. FELICIANO BASA

    073 Phil 704

  • G.R. No. 48823 September 30, 1942 - EDWARD HEIMAN v. GUILLERMO CABRERA

    073 Phil 707