ManilaTHIRD
DIVISION
EMETERIO
M. MOZAR,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 79403
November 13, 1989
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS,
HON. ERNESTO MADAMBA,
[or the Presiding Judge of the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila,
Branch XVII], CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA
and HEIRS OF FRANCISCO GUBALLA, SR.,
Respondents.
___________________________________________
HEIRS
OF FRANCISCO GUBALLA, SR.chanrobles virtual law library
and GUBALLA MARKETING CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
G. R. No. 78223
November 13, 1989
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS
and SPS. RUFINO B. RISMA
and TECLA GOTICO-RISMA,
Respondents.
RE
S O L U T I O N
PARAS, J.:
In its motion
for reconsideration dated January
30, 1989, counsel for Spouses Risma and Mozar stated the following:
Evidently, this Honorable Court decided
on the
merits of the case based solely on the Appellant's Brief of Guballa.
The
Spouses Risma respectfully submit that this is grave error and in
violation
of their rights to due process since they have all along been arguing
before
this Court not on the correctness of the decision of the trial court
but
on the propriety of the dismissal of Guballa's appeal by the respondent
appellate court.
It was premature for this Court to decide
the
case on the merits without according private respondents the
opportunity
to answer the alleged errors committed by the trial court. [p. 22,
Motion
for Reconsideration; p. 276, Rollo].
There is merit
in the above contention for actually
no discussion on the merits have been made by the spouses Risma and
Mozar.
We believe that they should have been given an opportunity to file
their
Appellee's Brief in the Court of Appeals if only to emphasize the
necessity
of due process. Be it noted that while it is true that instead of
remanding
the case to the appellate court, the Supreme Court can already decide
on
the merits from the facts that have been presented to it, still a
re-study
of this issue yields the conclusion that the facts already before Us
are
not yet complete, considering that the decision of the trial court and
the Appellant's Brief have not yet been presented to this Court. This
is
in addition to the fact that no Appellee's Brief has as yet been
presented
by the appellee to the Court of Appeals. Be it noted further that the
records
of the Court of Appeals on these two cases have not as yet been
elevated
to the Supreme Court.
PREMISES
CONSIDERED, the Motion for Reconsideration
is granted in the sense that these cases are hereby remanded to the
Court
of Appeals for further proceedings, that is, to enable the Spouses
Risma
and Mozar to file their Appellee's Brief in the Court of Appeals.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Padilla,
Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ.,
concur.
Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave. |