6/23/2016

G.R.No.L65894

TodayisThursday,June23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.L65894September24,1987
THEMUNICIPALGOVERNMENTOFCORON,PALAWAN,dulyrepresentedbyMAYORRICARDOF.LIM,
petitioner,
vs.
JOSECARINO,VICTORIANODACULLA,BENGUMASING,LUCENACRUZ,HILARIAYALON,PEPITO
YAMBAO,RICGACUTAN,ANDRESDACULLA,FELICISIMAURSAIS,PASTORJOSOL,TEDDYACTANG,
CANDIDAMANALO,LETICIARAMAL,ASSOCIATEJUSTICESPORFIRIOV.SISON,ABDULWAHIDA.BIDIN,
MARCELINOR.VELOSOandDESIDERIOP.JURADO,respondents.

GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.:
ThesecondparagraphofSection39,BatasPambansaBilang129providesthat:
No record on appeal shall be required to take an appeal. In lieu thereof, the entire original record
shallbetransmittedwithallthepagesprominentlynumberedconsecutively,togetherwithanindexof
thecontentsthereof.
Likewise,Sections18and19(b)oftheInterimRulesofCourtpromulgatedonJanuary11,1983providethat:
Sec.18.Thefilingofarecordonappealshallbedispensedwith,exceptinthecasesreferredtoin
subparagraph(b)ofparagraph(1)hereof.
Noappealbondshallberequiredforanappeal.
xxxxxxxxx
Sec.19(b)InappealsinspecialproceedingsinaccordancewithRule109oftheRulesofCourtand
other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal shall be thirty (30) days, a
recordofappealbeingrequired.
Whether or not the above provisions are applicable to the case at bar is the lone issue in this petition which
assailstheresolutionoftherespondentappellatecourtdatedJuly29,1983.
Thedispositivepartofthequestionedresolutionreads:
WHEREFORE,notwithstandingtheforegoing,inthebroaderinterestofjusticeandconsideringthat
underthepresentInterimRulesarecordonappealisnolongernecessaryfortakinganappeal,the
CourtresolvedtoordertherecalloftherecordsofthiscasefromtheRegionalTrialCourtofPalawan
BranchI,PuertoPrincessforfurtherproceedingsbeforethisCourt.(Rollo,pp.1213)
Followingarethepertinentfactsofthecaseasculledfromtherecords.
Sometimein1976,anactionwasfiledbythepetitionerbeforetheCourtofFirstInstanceofPalawanandPuerto
PrincessCity,BranchIVwhereitwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.35.Theactionsoughtauthorityfromthecourtto
demolish the structures built by the private respondents alongside the rock causeway of the petitioner's wharf.
Thecomplaintalleged,amongothers:
that the defendants' houses were constructed more than 3 years before the filing of instant action
(par. 2, Complaint),: that on August 19, 1974 the herein defendants undertook to remove their
structures on space where they were then at that time and are presently standing, when it will be
needed by the government (par. 3, Ibid) that the space or area is needed by the plaintiff for the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/sep1987/gr_l_65894_1987.html

1/4

6/23/2016

G.R.No.L65894

docking or berthing of pumpboats (motorized bancas) and fishing boats and for the loading and
unloading of cargoes along the pier on both sides thereof (par. 4, Ibid) and also to ease the
congestedtrafficalongit(par.10,Ibid)thathisExcellency,PresidentFerdinandE.Marcoshadthe
Mayorofplaintiffmunicipalitytodemolishandremoveallconstructionsalongthepieraftergivingthe
defendantsonemonthnotice(par.5,Ibid)andasidefromthisdirectiveofthePresident,themayor
of the plaintiffmunicipality is also authorized to remove the defendants' illegal constructions under
LOI19(par.7,Ibid)thatdespitesaidmayor'sdesiretocomplyimmediatelywiththesaidpresidential
directive, the defendants had already been given 3 extensions thereby delaying their ejectment
therefrom(par.6,Ibid)thatmostofthedefendantsareaffluentsquatters(par.9,Ibid)andthatfor
theindigentdefendants,asurveyedareahasalreadybeenmadereadyfortheirrelocation(par.12,
Ibid).(DecisionCFI,PalawanandPuertoPrincessCity,BranchIV,p.2Reno,p.15).
Ontheotherhand,theprivaterespondents,intheiranswer,counteralleged,amongothers:
thattheirstructureswhenmadewerecoveredbybuildingpermitswiththeapprovaloftheBureauof
Public Highways (par, 2,Answer) that the area where their structures were located is a foreshore
area(Par.4,Ibid)thatameetingwasconvenedandpresidedbyGovernorSocratesatCoron,the
samehavingbeenattendedbythelocalrepresentativesofthePhilippineConstabulary,thePhilippine
CoastGuard,theDepartment(nowMinistry)ofSocialServicesandDevelopment,theSangguniang
Bayan and the defendants and it was agreed in this meeting that the demolition of the defendants'
houses will be suspended pending action of the Office of the President (par. 15, 16, 17, Ibid) and
that the Chairman of the National Housing Authority had sent a letteradvice to the mayor of the
plaintiffmunicipalitytosuspendthedemolitionofthehousesofthedefendants(par.18,Ibid).(Rollo,
pp.1516)
After a series of postponements, the trial court, on January 16, 1979, reset the hearing of the case for the last
timeforthreeconsecutivedates,March20,21,and22,1979withfurtherwarningtotheprivaterespondentsthat
nomorepostponementsshallbeallowed.
On March 20, 1979, despite proper notice, the private respondents and their counsel failed to appear at the
scheduledhearing.Consequently,thepetitionermovedthatprivaterespondents'nonappearancebeconsidered
as a waiver on their part of their right to crossexamine the petitioner's witnesses and their right to present
evidence.Thelowercourtissuedanordergrantingthepetitioner'smotionandconsideredthecasesubmittedfor
decision.
Inviewoftheaboveorder,theprivaterespondentswenttotheappellatecourtoncertiorari.OnJune9,1979,the
appellate court dismissed for lack of merit CA G.R. SP09389R captioned "Jose Carino, et al., petitioners v.
MayorRicardoLimandHon.BenjaminVega,JudgeCFI,Palawan,BranchIV."
OnMay15,1979,afterthemaincasehadbeensubmittedfordecisionasaforestated,theprivaterespondents
filed a notice to take deposition which the lower court disregarded for being "irrelevant and for other obvious
reasons."
OnOctober10,1980,thelowercourtrendereditsdecision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffmunicipalityof
Coron,Palawanandagainstallthehereindefendantsasfollows:
1.Dismissingthedefendants'counterclaimforlackofmerit
2.Confirmingthepowerofplaintiffmunicipalityandauthorityofitsincumbentmayortodemolishthe
defendants'structuresalongtherockcausewayorpierofCoronand
3. Ordering the said defendants to remove their structures in the area in question within thirty (30)
days from receipt of this decision and for their failure to do so, authorizing the herein plaintiff
represented by its incumbent mayor to demolish the said structures at the expense of the said
defendants.
Costsagainstallthedefendants.(Rollo,pp.2829)
Onappeal,theprivaterespondentsonFebruary2,1982wererequired"tosubmittheforty(40)printedcopiesof
theirrecordonappealtogetherwiththeproofofserviceoffifteen(15)copiesthereofupontheappellee"within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice of the appellate court'sActing Clerk of Court regarding their appeal.
(Rollo,p.32)
Uponmotionbytheprivaterespondents,theappellatecourtgrantedanextensionofsixty(60)daysfromApril7,
1982 within which the required printed copies of the record on appeal may be submitted. However, despite the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/sep1987/gr_l_65894_1987.html

2/4

6/23/2016

G.R.No.L65894

extendedperiodgiven,theprivaterespondentswerenotabletocomplywiththeappellatecourt'srequirement.
InaresolutiondatedJuly19,1982,theappellatecourtrequiredtheprivaterespondentstoshowcausewhytheir
appealshouldnotbedismissedforfailuretofiletheprintedcopiesoftherecordonappeal.
OnAugust31,1982,theappellatecourtresolvedtodismisstheprivaterespondents'appealdocketedasCAG.R.
No.69052Rforfailuretofiletherequiredrecordonappeal.
OnDecember6,1982,theActingClerkofCourtoftheappellatecourt,inanEntryofJudgment,certifiedthatthe
aboveresolutiondismissingtheprivaterespondents'appealhadbecomefinalandexecutoryonSeptember27,
1982.
Accordingly,onFebruary1,1983,awritofexecutionwasissuedtoenforcetheOctober10,1980decisionofthe
CourtofFirstInstanceofPalawanandPuertoPrincesaCity,BranchIV.
Before the Provincial Sheriff could proceed with the execution of the judgment, the private respondents, in a
motiondatedApril12,1983askedtheappellatecourtthattherecordsofthecaseberecalledfromthecourtof
origin. In their supplemental motion, the private respondents argued that since under the present law, printed
recordsonappealarenolongerrequired,theirrighttobeheardonappealmustbeupheldinsteadoftheruleon
technicalities.
In its opposition to the private respondents' motion, the Petitioner pointed out that although the newly
promulgated procedural rules invoked by the private respondents may be given retroactive effect, their
applicability only covers pending actions and does not extend to those which had already become final and
executory.
As a consequence of the private respondents' motion to recall the records of the case, a temporary restraining
orderdatedApril29,1983wasissuedbytheappellatecourtdirectingtheProvincialSheriffofPalawantodesist
fromexecutingtheOctober10,1980decision.
On July 29, 1983, the appellate court issued the disputed resolution. The subsequent denial of the petitioner's
motionforreconsiderationpromptedthefilingofthispetition.
The petitioner maintains that the Interim Rules of Court promulgated on January 11, 1983 to implement the
provisionsofBatasPambansaBilang29cannotapplytothecaseatbarforthesimplereasonthattoreviveor
recallappealedcaseswhichhadbeendismissedorwhichhadbecomefinalandexecutorywouldcauseagreat
injusticetothoseinwhosefavorthesecaseshadbeendecided.Itisfurthercontendedthattoallowitsapplication
wouldputnoendtothoseappealedcaseswhichareotherwiseconsideredasclosedones.
Wefindmeritinthepetitioner'scontentions.
We have resolved the issue as to the extent of the retroactive application of section 18 of the Interim Rules of
CourtinAldayv.Camilon(120SCRA521).Wereiteratedtherulethat:
Statutesregulatingtheprocedureofthecourtswillbeconstruedasapplicabletoactionspendingand
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to
thatextent.(Peoplevs.Sumilang,77Phil.764[1946])Emphasissupplied.
The appellate court should have followed this timehonoured rule instead of issuing its July 29, 1983 resolution
seeking to revive a case already long final as evidenced by the entry of judgment made by itsActing Clerk of
CourtonDecember6,1982.
Therecordsoftheinstantcaseshowthatdespitethe60dayextensionperiodgiventotheprivaterespondents
within which they could file their printed record of appeal as then required, they still failed to do so. It was only
after a writ of execution had been issued on February 1, 1983 that the private respondents responded to the
appellate court's resolution dated July 19, 1982 requiring them to show cause why their appeal should not be
dismissedforfailuretofiletheprintedrecordonappeal.Theyclaimedthatthecourt'sresolutionmusthavebeen
aresultofoversightbecausetheyactuallyfiledarecordonappeal.
As a general rule, our policy towards an invocation of the right to appeal has been one of liberality. (Castro vs.
CourtofAppeals,123SCRA782citingDeLasAlasvs.CourtofAppeals,83SCRA200).Thisissobecausean
appeal is an essential part of our judicial system and every partylitigant should be afforded the amplest
opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause freed from the constraints of technicalities. (See
Siguenza vs. Court ofAppeals, 137 SCRA 570). However, it is an equally established doctrine that the right to
appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the
provisionsoflaw.(SeeUnitedCMCTextileWorkersUnionvs.Clave,137SCRA346).
Foraproperexerciseoftheirrighttoappeal,theprivaterespondentsshouldhavecompliedwithSection5,Rule
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/sep1987/gr_l_65894_1987.html

3/4

6/23/2016

G.R.No.L65894

46oftheRulesofCourt,asamendedbyourresolutionenbancdatedSeptember17,1974,whichpartlyprovides
that:
Sec.5.DutyofAppellantuponReceiptofNotice.Itshallbethedutyoftheappellant,withinfifteen
(15)daysfromthedateofthenoticereferredtointheprecedingsection,topaytotheClerkofthe
CourtofAppealsthefeeforthedocketingoftheappeal,andwithinsixty(60)daysfromsuchnotice
tosubmittothecourttwelve(12)printedcopiesoftherecordonappeal,ortwelve(12)typewrittenor
mimeographed(ononesideofgoodqualitypaper,eleveninchesinlengthbyeightandahalfinches
inwidthcommonlyknownaslettersizewrittendoublespaced)copiesofsaidrecordonappeal
together with proof of service of two (2) printed, typewritten or mimeographed copies thereof upon
theappellee.
Thus,uponfailureoftheappellanttocomplywiththeaboverule,theCourtofAppealsmaydismisshisappeal.
Said provision implicitly grants the Court ofAppeals the power to do so. (See Pfleider vs. Victoriano, 98 SCRA
491). The private respondents in this case did not submit printed copies of their record on appeal. When the
appellate court issued its July 19, 1982 resolution, it was to afford the private respondents a chance to explain
whytheyfailedtocomplywiththeapplicablerule.Afterhavingfailedtosubmittherequiredprintedcopiesoftheir
record on appeal, they cannot now rectify a clear noncompliance with the law by invoking the court's liberality
insofarastheapplicationofremediallawsisconcerned.Theprivaterespondentsevenfaultedtheappellatecourt
as having issued the July 19, 1982 resolution through oversight. They alleged that they had filed the required
record on appeal when in fact what they referred to was the record on appeal from the lower court to the
appellatecourtandnottheprintedrecordonappeal.
Sincetheprivaterespondentsfailedtosubmittherequiredprintedrecordonappeal,thelowercourt'sjudgmentin
favorofthepetitionerbecamefinal.andexecutoryasaneventualresultofthedismissaloftheappeal.Oncea
judgmentbecomesfinaltheprevailingparty,thepetitionerintheinstantcase,isentitledasamatterofrighttothe
executionofthejudgmentinhisfavor.Forthecourt,itbecomesitsministerialdutytoordertheexecutionofsaid
judgment.(Santos,Jr.vs.CourtofAppeals,etal.,G.R.No.56614,promulgatedJuly28,1987citingAgricultural
andIndustrialMarketing,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,118SCRA49BalintawakConstructionSupplyCorporationvs.
Valenzuela,124SCRA331RizalCommercialBankingCorporationvs.Dayrit,123SCRA203Gonzalesvs.Sayo,
122SCRA607).
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyGRANTED.TheresolutionofrespondentappellatecourtdatedJuly29,1983
is SET ASIDE. Let the records of this case be remanded to the court of origin for enforcement of the writ of
executionofthejudgment.Thisdecisionisimmediatelyexecutory.
SOORDERED.
Fernan(Chairman),FelicianoandCortes,JJ.,concur.
Bidin,*J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes
*Asoneoftherespondentsintheaboveentitledcase,JusticeBidintooknopart.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/sep1987/gr_l_65894_1987.html

4/4