G.R. No. L-19183; November 29, 1962
FILOMENA RAMIREZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed an action for annulment of title against respondents. The trial court dismissed the complaint and declared respondents the lawful owners. Petitioners received notice of the decision on June 16, 1961. Within the 30-day reglementary period to appeal, they filed a notice of appeal on July 14, 1961. The last day to perfect the appeal was July 16, 1961, a Sunday, thus extending the deadline to Monday, July 17, 1961. On that day, petitioners filed their record on appeal and an appeal bond. However, the bond was signed by only one surety, as the co-surety was out of town. The clerk of court suggested completing the bond before filing it. The bond was subsequently signed by the second surety and filed on July 18, 1961.
Respondents opposed the approval of the appeal bond, arguing it was filed one day late. The trial court agreed, disapproved the bond, dismissed the appeal, and declared its judgment final and executory. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to give due course to their appeal, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the appeal bond and dismissing the appeal for being filed one day beyond the reglementary period?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the trial court acted improvidently. The legal logic is twofold. First, on timeliness, the appeal bond was initially presented within the reglementary period on July 17, 1961, albeit with a defect. The subsequent completion on July 18 was a mere amendment to cure that defect, not the filing of a new, tardy bond. The bond was therefore filed on time.
Second, on the nature of the defect, the Rules of Court (Rule 41, Section 5) do not expressly mandate that a personal appeal bond must be subscribed by two sureties; court approval suffices. Even assuming two sureties were required, the initial filing with one surety was not a nullity but a curable irregularity. The Court emphasized the principle that rules of procedure should be liberally construed to secure just determinations (Rule 1, Section 2). A defective bond filed in good faith, not for delay, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court to allow its amendment. The trial court should have given petitioners an opportunity to perfect the bond rather than dismissing the appeal outright, especially given the modest bond amount (P60.00) intended only for potential costs. The order disapproving the bond constituted a grave abuse of discretion. Respondent court was ordered to give due course to the appeal.