Legal Forms Finals2

8/18/2019 Legal Forms Finals2

1/24

G.R. No. L-40945 November 10, 1986

IGMEDIO AZAJAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORALE !O"RT O# A$$EAL% &%e'o() D*v*+*o( ()!HAM %AM!O %ON%, IN!., respondents.

NAR/A%A, J.:

Petitioner seeks reversal of the Resolution of the respondent Court of Appeals (now Intermediate AppellateCourt) dated March 2, !"# settin$ aside the %ud$ment &' default rendered a$ainst private respondent &'the Court of irst Instance, and directin$ that said respondent &e allowed to le its answer to the complaintand after %oinder of issues, trial &e had and %ud$ment rendered on the merits.

*his case ori$inated from a complaint led &' petitioner I$medio A+a%ar a$ainst respondent Cham amcoand ons, Inc. in the Court of irst Instance (now Re$ional *rial Court) of Camarines ur. 1 A+a%ar-s claim,&rie', is that he had purchased from defendant (hereafter referred to simpl' as Cham amco), thru thelatter-s a$ent, !// 0e$s of nails of various si+es, specied in one of Cham amco-s printed order forms,and had $iven to the a$ent P!1,///.// in fun pa'ment thereof &ut in &reach of contract, Cham amcohad o3ered to deliver onl' a part of the 4uantit' ordered.

Cham amco led a motion to dismiss on two $rounds5 (!) failure of the complaint to state a cause of

action6the complaint-s lan$ua$e indicatin$ not a perfected sale &ut merel' an 7o3er to &u' &' plainti3 thatwas partl' accepted &' defendant,7 and failin$ to show that as e8plicitl' re4uired &' the order form priceshad &een conrmed &' Cham amco-s 7Manila 9:ce,7 and (2) that venue was improperl' laid6Chamamco-s invaria&le conditions in transactions of this nature, as A+a%ar well knew from man' suchtransactions in the past, &ein$ that 7an' le$al action thereon must &e instituted in the Cit' of Manila.

*he motion to dismiss contained a notice addressed to the Clerk of Court readin$ as follows5

*he Clerk of CourtCourt of irst Instance of Camarines ur;a$a Cit'

ir5

Please su&mit the fore$oin$ motion to the Court for its consideration and resolution immediatel'upon receipt thereof.

Makati, Ri+al for ;a$a Cit', e&ruar' ismiss incapa&le of to theperiod to answer, A+a%ar led a motion dated e&ruar' 2/, !"#< to declare Cham amco in default, whichthe Court $ranted. ' 9rder dated e&ruar' 22, !"#< the Court pronounced Cham amco in default andallowed A+a%ar to present evidence ex parte. *he Court %ustied the order of default in the wise5


2/24

9n e&ruar'


3/24

... (@)8cessive dama$es have &een awarded to the private respondent. In addition to orderin$ thepetitioner to deliver to the private respondent the nails ordered &' the latter, the petitioner wasalso ordered to pa' not onl' P!,/// actual dama$es for prots that the private respondent couldhave earned &ut also conse4uential dama$es of P!/,/// for the unreali+ed prots that the saidearnin$s and capital of the plainti3 could have earned, plus interest in &oth instances, e8emplar'dama$es of P,/// and P#,// for attorne'-s fees and related e8penses of liti$ation. *hus for thecapital of respondent of P!1,!//.// in the purchase of the nails, the petitioner was ordered to pa'dama$es of a total of P#,//.//, which includin$ the interest awarded can amount to overP


4/24

parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicalit' or some proceduralimperfections, 18 all conduce to concurrence with the Court of Appeals that 7the ends of %ustice would &e&etter served in this case if we &rush aside technicalit' and a3ord the petitioner its da' in court.

HB@R@9R@, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals appealed from, are a:rmed. Costs a$ainst petitioner.

9 9R>@R@>.


5/24

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1896 A3r* 9, 005

ATT. J"LI"% NERI, Complainant, vs. J"DGE JE%"% %. DE LA $EA, respondent.

R @ 9 ? D * I 9 ;

!ORONA, J.7

*his is a case for $rave misconduct, $ross i$norance of the law andor incompetence led &' Att'. Fulius J.;eri a$ainst Fud$e Fesus . de la PeKa. It ori$inated from a civil case for dama$es led &' @mmanuel A+nara$ainst Citi&ank (which was represented &' complainant as counsel), docketed as Civil Case ;o. C@6!Eissatised with the decision, A+nar led throu$h counsel a motion for reconsideration, with motion to re6raLe the case. In an order dated eptem&er !!, !""1, Actin$ Presidin$ Fud$e Ramon Codilla (whosucceeded Marcos), citin$ the fact that he was 7occupied with two (2) salas7 and the fact that 7thePresidin$ Fud$e who ori$inall' penned the decision is a credit card holder of CI*IA;0Nwhose mem&ershipcould naturall' inuence the outcome of this case in favor of the defendant &ank,7 directed the re6raLin$of the case to R*C Ce&u ranch , presided over &' respondent Fud$e Fesus de la PeKa. Respondent thenordered Citi&ank to le its comment on A+nar-s motion for reconsideration. E Citi&ank led its oppositioninstead. In an order dated ;ovem&er 2, !""1, respondent $ranted A+nar-s motion for reconsideration5

HB@R@9R@, the Motion for Reconsideration is here&' =RA;*@>. *he >@CII9; dated Ma' 2",

!""1 is here&' reconsidered, and conse4uentl', the defendant is here&' condemned lia&le to pa'the followin$ sums of mone'5

a) P!/,///,///.// as moral dama$es

&) P ,///,///.// as e8emplar' dama$es

c) P !,///,///.// as attorne'-s fees and

d) P2//,///.// as liti$ation e8penses.

9 9R>@R@>.#

As a result of the 9rder, complainant led this administrative case on Ful' !E, !""", which was docketed asControl ;o.


6/24

time the su&%ect print6out was encoded, or who encoded and printed the same, nor did he esta&lishpersonal knowled$e of who prepared the print6out, or whether it was prepared &' one responsi&le for it inhis professional capacit' or in the performance of his o:cial dut' or in the re$ular course of his &usiness.inall', the person who prepared it did not testif' in court or on deposition.

Complainant went on to sa' that respondent-s incompetence and dishonest' showed in his failure toappreciate and evaluate Citi&ank-s e8tensive documentar' evidence which clearl' esta&lished that it didnot &lacklist A+nar-s Mastercard.

inall', complainant pointed out that the dama$es respondent awarded to plainti3 A+nar werescandalousl' e8or&itant. Be pra'ed for respondent-s dismissal from the service.

9n eptem&er , !""", respondent led his comment.!! Be principall' contended that, havin$ appealedfrom his decision to the Court of Appeals, the complainant should not have led this administrative case.Respondent decried complainant-s case as forum6shoppin$. In his defense, respondent asserted that hehad in fact read the transcripts, havin$ received copies thereof attached to an ex parte manifestation led&' plainti3 A+nar.!2 Be also defended the amount of dama$es he awarded &' comparin$ them to thoseawarded in a !"# case, with ination taken into account.

Complainant then led his repl' to the comment,! assailin$ the ex parte manifestation which respondenthad supposedl' relied upon in decidin$ the case. Be pointed out that respondent should not have evenconsidered the said manifestation &ecause Citi&ank had not &een served a cop' and it was led after o:cehours. Be likewise refuted respondent-s alle$ations of forum6shoppin$ and impropriet' in lin$ anadministrative case while an appeal was pendin$.

In his re%oinder, respondent defended his appreciation of the ex parte manifestation. Be likewise reiteratedhis claim that the administrative complaint should not have &een led with the appeal.!<

9n e&ruar' 21, 2//!, the econd >ivision of this Court resolved to hold the administrative case ina&e'ance until the nal resolution of the Court of Appeals of CA6=R CG ;o. E2


7/24

(Rule !)

%E!. 4. Hearing of motion. O @8cept for motions which the court ma' act upon without pre%udicin$the ri$hts of the adverse part', ever' written motion shall &e set for hearin$ &' the applicant.

Accordin$ to the 9CA, the fact that plainti3 A+nar had failed to serve a cop' of his ex parte manifestationupon Citi&ank should have &een reason enou$h for respondent to disre$ard the same.

?ikewise notin$ the fact that the ex parte manifestation was led &e'ond o:ce hours, the 9CA found thatthis 7created an idea that there was a covert attempt to favor A+nar.7 Bowever, citin$ the a&sence ofsu&stantial evidence, it pointed out that 7it should not &e presumed that the procedural lapse committed&' respondent (was) attended &' corrupt motive of a$rant disre$ard of the rules.7 *he 9CA alsoconsidered in respondent-s favor his defense that he was merel' tr'in$ to help decon$est the dockets.inall', the 9CA found the char$es of $ross i$norance of law and incompetence to &e without &asis, andfound him lia&le instead for simple misconduct. *he 9CA recommended a ne of P!/,///.

He adopt part of the ndin$s of the Court Administrator.

ut we disa$ree with its ndin$ that the respondent violated &oth Rules ! and ! of the !""# RevisedRules of Civil Procedure.

ection


8/24

As a mem&er of the %udiciar', respondent-s ever' action is supposed to &e &e'ond reproach and a&ovesuspicion. *he 2//< Code of Fudicial Conduct clearl' states that 7Fud$es shall avoid impropriet' and theappearance of impropriet' in all of their activities.72! ' actin$ on a document which was sorel' defective(for two reasons5 failure to serve a cop' on the adverse part' and failure to le it durin$ o:ce hours), and&' makin$ an e$re$iousl' lar$e award of dama$es in favor of plainti3 A+nar, he inevita&l' opened himselfup to suspicion of havin$ entered into a dirt', secret deal with A+nar and there&' severel' tarnished theimpartialit' with which he was at all times supposed to conduct himself.

=iven respondent-s actions, we disa$ree with the 9CA-s ndin$s of simple misconduct. ecause of the

hi$hl' anomalous manner in which respondent rendered his decision, as well as the 4uestiona&le contentof the decision itself, which was eventuall' overturned &' the Court of Appeals, we nd him $uilt' ofknowin$l' renderin$ an un%ust %ud$ment or order as determined &' a competent court in an appropriateproceedin$.22

*he penalt' for this o3ense ran$es from a ne of P2/,///, to suspension from three to si8 months, todismissal from the service.2 In this case, the penalt' of suspension for si8 months is appropriate, with awarnin$ that another such infraction of this nature will warrant a more severe penalt'.

;HERE#ORE, Fud$e F@D . >@ ?A P@A is here&' found =DI?*Q of knowin$l' renderin$ an un%ust %ud$ment or order as determined &' a competent court in an appropriate proceedin$ and is here&'DP@;>@> from o:ce for si8 months. Considerin$ the $ravit' of this o3ense, he is here&' warned thatanother infraction of this kind will merit a penalt' &e'ond mere suspension from pu&lic o:ce.

%O ORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/am_rtj_05_1896_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/am_rtj_05_1896_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/am_rtj_05_1896_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/am_rtj_05_1896_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/am_rtj_05_1896_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/am_rtj_05_1896_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/am_rtj_05_1896_2005.html#fnt23


9/24

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1886 M< 16, 005

AL#REDO G. OI%ER, complainant, vs. J"DGE JO%E . AG"IRRE, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL !O"RT,RAN!H 55, HIMAMALAN !IT, NEGRO% O!!IDENTAL, respondent.

> @ C I I 9 ;

!HI!O-NAZARIO, J.7

*he instant administrative case arose from the complaint! of Alfredo =. oiser led with the 9:ce of theCourt Administrator (9CA) char$in$ Fud$e Fose Q. A$uirre, Fr., Re$ional *rial Court (R*C) of Bimama'lan Cit',;e$ros 9ccidental, ranch , with =rave A&use of >iscretion and =ross I$norance of the ?aw.

Complainant Alfredo oiser was the plainti3 in an e%ectment case led &efore the Municipal *rial Court(M*C) of Bimama'lan Cit', ;e$ros 9ccidental. 9n !! Ful' 2//, the M*C rendered a decision2 in favor ofcomplainant, the dispositive portion of which reads5

HB@R@9R@, %ud$ment is here&' rendered in favor of the plainti3 and a$ainst the defendant asfollows5

!) or the defendant to vacate su&%ect land known as ?ot ;o. 2/2 situated at r$'.Candumarao, Bini$aran, ;e$ros 9cciental, consistin$ of .E hectares leased &' theplainti3 from Mar' ;onasco and 9felia >onado, heirs of the re$istered owners, the latespouses ;arciso =a'ares and Pa+ ;ava, and to peacefull' turn over possession thereof tothe plainti3

2) or the defendant to pa' plainti3 the amount of P2//,///.// &' wa' of actual dama$es

) or defendant to pa' plainti3 attorne's fees in the amount of P!/,///.// plus P!,///.//as appearance fee and to pa' the cost.

*he writ of preliminar' in%unction issued &' the Court is here&' ordered dismissed.

*he case was appealed to the R*C of ;e$ros 9ccidental, ranch .

9n ! 9cto&er 2//, defendant6appellant alvador Fulle+a led a motion to release &ond on the $roundthat the M*C of Bini$aran, ;e$ros 9ccidental, in its decision dated !! Ful' 2//, had alread' resolved thewrit of preliminar' in%unction without mentionin$ the applicants lia&ilit'.

9n !E 9cto&er 2//, respondent %ud$e $ranted the motion.

Complainant alle$ed that the issuance &' respondent %ud$e of the 9rder dated !E 9cto&er 2// isindicative of his i$norance of the law considerin$ that the motion did not state that he was furnished acop' of the motion there&' deprivin$ him of his ri$ht to due process. Be also averred that the motion was

a mere scrap of paper for failure to state the time and date of hearin$. Be further alle$ed that respondentmanifested $ross i$norance when he resolved to $rant the motion to release the in%unction &ondconsiderin$ that the same was meant to answer for dama$es that he ma' su3er due to defendantscontinued ille$al possession of the land.

9n ! Fanuar' 2//


10/24

of the appealed case, the' would have discovered that he a:rmed in toto the decision of the lower courtin favor of the complainant.

9n !< April 2//


11/24

@C*I9;


12/24

notwithstandin$ that the records of the case had &een transmitted to the provincial scal and aninformation has alread' &een led in court.

. In Josena M. 'illanueva v. M$C Judge (en)amin %. Almazan,2 the court found respondent %ud$e$uilt' of $ross i$norance of the law and was sentenced to pa' a ne of ive *housand Pesos(P,///.//), with stern warnin$ that a repetition of the same or similar act shall &e dealt with moreseverel', when he conducted a preliminar' investi$ation in a case co$ni+a&le &' the Municipal *rialCourt.

P@9 (P,///.//) to &e deducted from his retirement &enets.

%O ORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/am_rtj_00_1544_2000.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/am_rtj_00_1544_2000.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/am_rtj_00_1544_2000.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/am_rtj_00_1544_2000.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/am_rtj_04_1886_2005.html#fnt29


13/24

A.M. No. RTJ-05-191 ormer< O!A I$I No. 04-192-RTJ %e3ember 0, 005

MA. TERE%A H. DE JE%"%, !om3*(( v+. J"DGE RENATO J. DILAG, $RE%IDING J"DGE,REGIONAL TRIAL !O"RT, RAN!H 2, OLONGA$O !IT, Re+3o()e(

In a complaintS!T dated e&ruar' e Fesus char$ed respondent Fud$e Renato F. >ila$ of the Re$ional *rial Court of 9lon$apoCit', ranch #, with $ross i$norance of the law, renderin$ un%ust orders, a&use of authorit' and misuse of

court processes.Complainant alle$ed inter alia that on Au$ust 2E, 2//2, her hus&and Holf$an$ Beinrich 0onradBarlin$hausen (Barlin$hausen) led a petition for declaration of nullit' of their marria$e with the Re$iona

*rial Court of 9lon$apo Cit', ranch #, docketed as Civil Case ;o. Eeeds of *arlac, amon$others, was directed to annotate the 9rder on the E2 land titles alle$edl' purchased &' Barlin$hausenswife usin$ his mone' without his consent.

9n 9cto&er 2, 2//2, Barlin$hausen, throu$h counsel, led another %x0Parte Motion pra'in$ for theissuance of an 9rder directin$ the ureau of Immi$ration and >eportation (I>) to allow him to enter thiscountr' in order to prosecute his petition for declaration of nullit' of marria$e.

9n 9cto&er ecisionS


14/24

nevertheless he set the motion for hearin$ to ena&le the adverse part', herein complainant, to participatetherein or to le an opposition. esides, the Rules allow him to act upon an e86parte motion re4uirin$ 4uickaction, like the motion &efore him. *here was ur$enc' considerin$ that the con%u$al funds are &ein$misappropriated &' complainant. Moreover, he conducted claricator' hearin$. At an' rate, his 4uestioned9rder is not tainted with &ad faith or fraud.

Hith respect to the 9rder of 9cto&er over Barlin$hausen.

In his Report and Recommendation, Court Administrator Pres&itero F. Gelasco, Fr. stated interalia that5

A thorou$h e8amination of the instant case reveals a&use of authorit' &orderin$ on$ross i$norance of the law. Records show that, relative to the petition for declaration of nullit' of marria$e, respondent Fud$e issued at least two orders that were &luntl' nullied &'the appellate court. *he rules and principles i$nored were so &asic, and haste wascharacteristicall' palpa&le from the incidents.

8 8 8

?ikewise, respondent cannot take shield from the fact that his assailed orders werealread' set aside &' the appellate court throu$h the proper %udicial remedies. Precisel', hiscited %urisprudence itself e8plicitl' states, It is onl' after the availa&le %udicial remedies have

&een e8hausted or when the appellate tri&unal have spoken with nalit' that the door to anin4uir' to his administrative lia&ilit' ma' &e said to have opened or closed. A displa' of haste and disre$ard of &asic rules is a norm incompati&le with the prudent attitude andso&riet' e8pected of a $ood %ud$e.

Be recommended that5

!. *he instant complaint &e RE-DO!=ETED as a re$ular administrative matter

2. *he respondent Fud$e, for a&use of authorit' and $ross i$norance of the law, &eaccordin$l' meted a #INE in the amount of twent' thousand pesos (P2/,///.//) witha ;ARNING that future similar infractions shall &e dealt with more severel'.

In our ResolutionSET dated Fanuar' 2


15/24

Hhen a %ud$e fails to consider so &asic and elemental a rule, a law, or a principle in the dischar$e ofhis duties, he is either too incompetent and undeservin$ of his position, or is too vicious that the oversi$htor omission was deli&eratel' done in &ad faith and in $rave a&use of %udicial authorit'. In &oth instances,the %ud$es dismissal is in order.S#T

?ikewise, respondents failure to a3ord complainant the opportunit' to &e heard as a matter of dueprocess of law deserves administrative sanction.S1T

Relative to the challen$ed 9rder dated 9cto&er to allow the entr' of Barlin$hausen to this countr' would e3ectivel' countermand the order ofdetentionS!/T issued &' the I> and constitutes an intrusion into its prero$atives as re$ards the entr',admission, e8clusion, re$istration, repatriation, monitorin$ and deportation of forei$ners within ournational territor'.

In his desperate attempt to evade administrative sanction, respondent %ud$e maintains that sincecomplainant has alread' resorted to a proper remed', i.e., &' lin$ a petition for *ertiorari with the Courtof Appeals 4uestionin$ his twin 9rders, she is &arred from lin$ the instant administrative complaintinvolvin$ the same 9rders. Be cited our rulin$ in Hilario vs. 2*ampo 333, #! CRA 2E/ (2//!) that wheresome %udicial means is availa&le, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remed' for an act of a

%ud$e deemed a&errant or irre$ular.

Hhile it is true that the Court of Appeals has set aside the 4uestioned twin 9rders, the fact remainsthat respondent %ud$e has shown his i$norance of &oth su&stantive and procedural laws which warrants anadministrative sanction.

*he Court reco$ni+es that not ever' %udicial error &espeaks i$norance of the law and that, if committed in$ood faith, does not warrant administrative sanction, &ut onl' in cases within the parameters of tolera&lemis%ud$ment. Hhere, however, the procedure is so simple and the facts so evident as to &e &e'ondpermissi&le mar$ins of error, as in this case, to still err thereon amounts to i$norance of the law. S!!T

In this case, respondent %ud$e displa'ed a deplora&le decienc' in his $rasp of the &asic principles$overnin$ motions, specicall', the three6da' notice rule and the re4uisite proof of service. Also, heshowed his utter lack of knowled$e and understandin$ of our immi$ration laws.

As an advocate of %ustice and a visi&le representation of the law, a %ud$e is e8pected to keepa&reast with and &e procient in the application and interpretation of the law. S!2T Hhen the law issu:cientl' &asic, as what is involved in the present case, a %ud$e owes it to his o:ce to simpl' appl' itan'thin$ less than that would &e $ross i$norance of the law.S!T

In $ugot v. Coli4ores,S!


16/24

;HERE#ORE, respondent Fud$e Renato F. >ila$ is here&' found G"ILT of $ross i$norance of thelaw and is ordered to pa' a I;@ of *BIR*Q *B9DA;> P@9 (P/,///.//) upon notice.

%O ORDERED.


17/24

G.R. No. 1416 November , 001

#RAN!I%!O A.G. DE LIANO, ALERTO O. /ILLA-ARILLE, JR., () %AN MIG"EL!OR$ORATION,petitioners, vs. HON. !O"RT O# A$$EAL% () ENJAMIN A. TANGO, respondents.

DE LEON, JR., J.7

efore us is a petition for review on certiorari pra'in$ for the reversal of the Resolution ! dated Fune ecem&er


18/24

888 888 888

As pointed out &' plainti36appellee, the rief does not contain a u&%ect Inde8 nor a *a&le of Casesand Authorities, with pa$e references. Moreover, the tatement of the Case, tatement of acts,and Ar$uments in the rief has no pa$e reference to the record. *hese procedural lapses %ustif' thedismissal of the appeal, pursuant to &e*tion , 5f6! Rule 78 of ,99: Rules of Civil Pro*edure! asamended, which reads5

7@C*I9; !. "rounds for dismissal of appeal. O An appeal ma' &e dismissed &' the Court ofAppeals, on its own motion, or on that of the appellee, on the followin$ $rounds5

888 888 888

(f) A&sence of specic assi$nment of errors in the appellant-s &rief, or of pa$e references tothe record as re4uired in section !, para$raphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule


19/24

2. *he appeal involves a 4uestion of su&stance which should have &een resolved &' theCourt of Appeals, to wit5 whether a third part' mort$a$or can unilaterall' withdraw themort$a$e without the consent of the de&tor and creditor.

*he petition has no merit.

*he premise that underlies all appeals is that the' are merel' ri$hts which arise from statute therefore,the' must &e e8ercised in the manner prescri&ed &' law. It is to this end that rules $overnin$ pleadin$sand practice &efore appellate courts were imposed. *hese rules were desi$ned to assist the appellate courtin the accomplishment of its tasks, and overall, to enhance the orderl' administration of %ustice.

In his denition of a &rief, Fustice Malcolm e8plained thus5

8 8 8 S?Tet it &e recalled that the word 7&rief7 is derived from the ?atin brevis, and the rench briefe,and literall' means a short or condensed statement. *he purpose of the &rief, as all law studentsand law'ers know, is to present to the court in concise form the points and 4uestions incontrovers', and &' fair ar$ument on the facts and law of the case to assist the court in arrivin$ ata %ust and proper conclusion. $+e brief s+ould be so prepared as to minimize t+e labor of t+e *ourtin t+e examination of t+e re*ord upon #+i*+ t+e appeal is +eard and determined.!! SemphasissuppliedT

Relative thereto, ection !, Rule


20/24

(h) In cases not &rou$ht up &' record on appeal, the appellant-s &rief shall contain, as an appendi8,a cop' of the %ud$ment or nal order appealed from.

*his particular rule was instituted with reason, and most certainl', it was not intended to &ecome 7 acustom more honored in the &reach than in the o&servance.7 It has its lo$ic, which is to present to theappellate court in the most helpful li$ht, the factual and le$al antecedents of a case on appeal.

*he rst re4uirement of an appellant-s &rief is a su&%ect inde8. *he inde8 is intended to facilitate the reviewof appeals &' providin$ read' reference, functionin$ much like a ta&le of contents. Dnlike in other

%urisdiction, there is no limit on the len$th of appeal &riefs or appeal memoranda led &efore appellatecourts. *he dan$er of this is the ver' real possi&ilit' that the reviewin$ tri&unal will &e swamped withvoluminous documents. *his occurs even thou$h the rules consistentl' ur$e the parties to &e 7&rief7 or7concise7 in the draftin$ of pleadin$s, &riefs, and other papers to &e led in court. *he su&%ect inde8 makesreadil' availa&le at one-s n$ertips the su&%ect of the contents of the &rief so that the need to thum&throu$h the &rief pa$e after pa$e to locate a part'-s ar$uments, or a particular citation, or whatever elseneeds to &e found and considered, is o&viated.

An assi$nment of errors follows the su&%ect inde8. It is dened in this wise5

An assi$nment of errors in appellate procedure is an enumeration &' appellant or plainti3 in error ofthe errors alle$ed to have &een committed &' the court &elow in the trial of the case upon which heseeks to o&tain a reversal of the %ud$ment or decree it is in the nature of a pleadin$, and performsin the appellate court the same o:ce as a declaration or complaint in a court of ori$inal %urisdictionuch an assi$nment is appellant-s complaint, or pleadin$, in the appellate court, and takes theplace of a declaration or &ill an appeal without an assi$nment of errors would &e similar to a suitwithout a complaint, &ill, or declaration. *he assi$nment is appellant-s declaration or complainta$ainst the trial %ud$e, char$in$ harmful error, and proof vel non of assi$nment is within the recordon appeal.

888 888 888

*he o&%ect of such pleadin$s is to point out the specic errors claimed to have &een committed &'the court &elow, in order to ena&le the reviewin$ court and the opposin$ part' to see on whatpoints appellant or plainti3 in error intends to ask a reversal of the %ud$ment or decree, and to limitdiscussion to those points. *he o:ce of an assi$nment of errors is not to point out le$alcontentions, &ut onl' to inform the appellate court that appellant assi$ns as erroneous certainnamed rulin$s the function of the assi$nment is to $roup and &rin$ forward such of the e8ceptionspreviousl' noted in the case on appeal as appellant desires to preserve and present to theappellant.!2

It has &een held that a $eneral assi$nment of errors is unaccepta&le under the rules. *hus, a statement ofthe followin$ tenor5 that 7the Court of irst Instance of this Cit' incurred error in renderin$ the %ud$mentappealed from, for it is contrar' to law and the wei$ht of the evidence,7 was deemed insu:cient. ! *heappellant has to specif' in what aspect of the law or the facts that the trial court erred. *he conclusion,therefore, is that the appellant must carefull' formulate his assi$nment of errors. Its importance cannot &eunderestimated, as ection 1, Rule ! of the Rules of Court will attest5

uestions t+at ma be de*ided. O ;o error which does not a3ect the %urisdiction over the su&%ectmatter or the validit' of the %ud$ment appealed from or the proceedin$s therein will &e consideredunless stated in the assi$nment of errors, or closel' related to or dependent on an assi$ned errorand properl' ar$ued in the &rief, save as the court ma' pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.

*he rules then re4uire that an appellant-s &rief must contain &oth a 7statement of the case7 and a7statement of facts.7 A statement of the case $ives the appellate tri&unal an overview of the %udicialantecedents of the case, providin$ material information re$ardin$ the nature of the controvers', the


21/24

proceedin$s &efore the trial court, the orders and rulin$s elevated on appeal, and the %ud$ment itself. *hese data ena&le the appellate court to have a &etter $rasp of the matter entrusted to it for its appraisal.

In turn, the statement of facts comprises the ver' heart of the appellant-s &rief. *he facts constitute the&ack&one of a le$al ar$ument the' are determinative of the law and %urisprudence applica&le to the case,and conse4uentl', will $overn the appropriate relief. Appellants should remem&er that the Court of Appealsis empowered to review &oth 4uestions of law and of facts. 9therwise, where onl' a pure 4uestion of law isinvolved, appeal would pertain to this Court. An appellant, therefore, should take care to state the factsaccuratel' thou$h it is permissi&le to present them in a manner favora&le to one part'. *he &rief must

state the facts admitted &' the parties, as well as the facts in controvers'. *o la'men, the distinction ma'appear insu&stantial, &ut the di3erence is clear to the practitioner and the student of law. acts which areadmitted re4uire no further proof, whereas facts in dispute must &e &acked &' evidence. Relative thereto,the rule specicall' re4uires that one-s statement of facts should &e supported &' pa$e references to therecord. Indeed, diso&edience therewith has &een punished &' dismissal of the appeal.!


22/24

?astl', the appellant is re4uired to state, under the appropriate headin$, the reliefs pra'ed for. In so doin$,the appellate court is left in no dou&t as to the result desired &' the appellant, and act as thecircumstances ma' warrant.

ome ma' ar$ue that adherence to these formal re4uirements serves &ut a meanin$less purpose, thatthese ma' &e i$nored with little risk in the smu$ certaint' that li&eralit' in the application of proceduralrules can alwa's &e relied upon to remed' the inrmities. *his misses the point. He are not martinets inappropriate instances, we are prepared to listen to reason, and to $ive relief as the circumstances ma'warrant. Bowever, when the error relates to somethin$ so elementar' as to &e ine8cusa&le, our discretion

&ecomes nothin$ more than an e8ercise in frustration. It comes as an unpleasant shock to us that thecontents of an appellant-s &rief should still &e raised as an issue now. *here is nothin$ arcane or novela&out the provisions of ection !, Rule


23/24

since the case at &ar involves a decision rendered &' the Re$ional *rial Court e8ercisin$ its ori$inal %urisdiction.

Cases elevated to the Court of Appeals are treated di3erentl' dependin$ upon their classication into oneof three () cate$ories5 appealed civil cases, appealed criminal cases, and special cases.2


24/24

authorit' to &ind his client in takin$ appeals and in all matters of ordinar' %udicial procedure, / afortiori then, petitioner MC must &e held &ound &' the actuations of its counsel of record, Att'. Afa&le.

HB@R@9R@, the instant petition is here&' >@;I@> for lack of merit, with cost a$ainst petitioner anMi$uel Corporation.

9 9R>@R@>.

(ellosillo! Mendoza! uisumbing and (uena! JJ.! concur.

Legal Forms Finals2

Documents

Transcript of Legal Forms Finals2