REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1 / Ma. Angeline G. Inguillo / Cases 58-76 #74 ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION AND FLORANTE DY VS HON. COURT OF APPEALS, APPEALS, HON. CRISPIN CRISPIN C. LARON G.R. No. 167237, April 23, 2010 DOCTRINE: The appeal of a final order substantially amending only some matters in a previously rendered Decision is also an appeal of the other intimately interwoven matters passed upon in the original decision. FACTS: Spouses Paul Pelaez Jr and Rocelli Pelaez were employees of Associated Ango-American Ango-American Tobacco Tobacco Corporation. Corporation. When Paul defaulted defaulted in remitting remitting sales proceeds, proceeds, the Corporation instituted the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage executed by the former. As a result, spouses Pelaez filed a Complaint against the corporation to stop the extrajudicial sale.
In the Regional Trial Court, the court decided in favor of the Spouses Pelaez. However, upon motion of the spouses Pelaez, the Regional Trial Court amended its previous decision and changed the overage and moral and exemplary damages amounts to be paid by the corporation. The corporation filed a notice of appeal. Meanwhile, the spouses Pelaez filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Partial Execution. The Regional Trial Court, granted the motion of spouses Pelaez. The corporation then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The same was dismissed. Thus, a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed by the corporation with the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the changes made by the court with its decision constitutes an amendment or supplemental pleading. HELD: The modification is an amendment. The appeal of a final order substantially amending only some matters in a previously rendered Decision is also an appeal of the other intimately interwoven matters passed upon in the original decision . The decision of the Regional Trial Court is not severable since the disposition of some inter-related issues in the original Regional Trial Court Decision were materially amended by the latest order, thus, these two issuances must be taken in conjunction with each other.
#73 TRINIDAD GO VS VICENTE VELEZ CHAVES G.R. No. 182341, April 23, 2010 DOCTRINE: A deviation from the rigid application of the procedural rules may thus be allowed, as the petitioners should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case, rather than lose their property on mere technicalities. FACTS: Vicente Chaves filed a complaint against spouses Trinidad and Gonzalo Go for the removal of the clouds on his certificate of title. Chaves prayed that the SPA and mortgage to the spouses Go be invalidated. Subsequently, two parties intervened in the case namely Alice, wife of Vicente Chaves, and Mega Integrated Agro-Livestock Farms Inc. which claimed that it purchased Vicente a portion of the property in dispute.
The Regional Trial Court decided in favor of Vicente Chaves. Thereafter, spouses Go appealed to the Court of Appeals. A Motion to Dismiss was filed by Mega and Alice, alleging that spouses Go failed to furnish them a copy of the brief. The Court of Appeals granted the motion of Mega and Alice and dismissed the appeal of the spouses Go. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal due to the failure to append a copy of the assailed judgment and late furnishing of copies of the brief to Mega and Alice. HELD: Yes. Despite deficiencies in the petitioner’s appellant brief , it is found to be sufficient in form and substance as to apprise the appellate court of the essential facts and nature of the case as well as the issues raised and the laws necessary for the disposition of the same. The failure of the counsel of spouses Go to serve a copy of the appellant’s brief to two of the adverse parties was a mere oversight constituting excusable neglect. A deviation from the rigid application of the procedural rules may thus be allowed, as the petitioners should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case, rather than lose their property on mere technicalities . Every litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Hence, the dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon.
#68 REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, VS COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 165155, April 13, 2010 DOCTRINE: Rules of procedure are tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice. So long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be liberally construed, especially in agrarian cases. FACTS: Respondents are co-owners of several parcels of land. Petitioners on the other hand are in actual possession of the said land as tillers thereof. Thereafter, an ejectment case was filed by respondents with the Department for Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board for non-payment of rentals.
The Regional Adjudicator decided in favor of the respondents and extinguished the tenancy leasehold relationship. The petitioners filed two notices of appeal. In answer, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal on the basis that the Notice of Appeal was not filed beyond the reglementary period, it did not state ground relied upon for the appeal, and that contained the forged signature of the deceased defendants. The motion was granted. Thereafter, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found merit in respondent’s petition. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioner which was denied. ISSUE: Whether or not the appeals should be considered as “mere scraps of paper” for failure to state the grounds relied upon for an appeal. HELD: No. The defects found in the two notices of appeal are not of such nature that would cause a denial of the right to appeal. Moreover, the defects are not only excusable but also inconsequential. Rules of procedure are tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice. So long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be liberally construed, especially in agrarian cases. When the heirs of the real parties in interest signed the Notice of Appeal, they did not intend, and could not have intended, to visit fraud upon the proceedings; any intention to mislead is simple negated by their ready admission and participation in the proceedings as heirs.
#65 ANGELITA DE GUZMAN V EMILIO A. GONZALEZ III G.R. No. 158104, March 26, 2010 DOCTRINE: The transmittal of the funds is considered a clear case of restitution and is a mere mitigating circumstance. It does not obliterate the criminal liability of the accused for the malversation of public funds FACTS: Angelita De Guzman was indicted for malversation of public funds before the Regional Trial Court. She requested for a reinvestigation alleging she was not able to participate during the preliminary investigation as she was out of the country. The reinvestigation was granted. After reinvestigation, the case was recommended for dismissal for insufficiency of evidence to establish a probable cause. However the dismissal of the Prosecutor was recommended for disapproval by Graft Investigation Officer II Agbada. As an effect, a demand was sent to De Guzman for the transmittal of the amount due to the Municipality of Claveria. De Guzman complied. Meanwhile, the Deputy Ombudsman favored the disapproval of the recommendation for dismissal. De Guzman filed a Motion for Reconsideration. ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution of the case should be continued despite the findings of the reinvestigating prosecutor that there was no sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. HELD: Yes. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. The Deputy Ombudsman was merely exercising his power and thus it is discretionary upon him whether or not he would rely on the findings of fact of the Prosecutor. Moreover, the transmittal of the funds is considered a clear case of restitution and is a mere mitigating circumstance. It does not obliterate the criminal liability of the accused for the malversation of public funds.
