GR L 53465; (November, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53465 November 2, 1982
ANTONIO NITURA, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE C. COLAYCO, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXI, HON. JOSE B. HERRERA, City Court of Manila, Branch II and LOURDES EVANGELISTA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Antonio Nitura received an adverse decision from the City Court of Manila on September 9, 1978. On September 12, 1978, within the reglementary period, he filed his notice of appeal and remitted, via postal money orders, the appeal bond and appellate court docket fee. Discovering a P5.00 deficiency in the docket fee, he transmitted an additional postal money order on September 23, 1978, still within the appeal period. The City Court, in three separate orders, ruled that the appeal was seasonably perfected and directed the elevation of the records to the Court of First Instance (CFI).
Despite these orders, the records were not transmitted promptly. Respondent CFI Judge Jose C. Colayco subsequently issued an order on March 19, 1980, directing the return of the case records to the City Court. The CFI grounded its order on the fact that the postal money orders for the appeal bond and docket fee had become stale and were no longer encashable, which it deemed equivalent to non-payment of the required legal fees.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent CFI judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the return of the case records to the inferior court on the sole ground that the postal money orders submitted for the appeal bond and docket fee had become stale.
RULING
Yes, the respondent CFI judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period as petitioner had substantially complied with all legal requirements: timely filing of the notice of appeal, and delivery of the postal money orders for the appeal bond and docket fee. The staleness of the money orders was not attributable to the petitioner but to the delay in the transmittal of the records by the clerk of court, a ministerial duty over which the appellant has no control. This delay was further exacerbated by the private respondent’s filing of numerous motions seeking dismissal of the already perfected appeal.
The legal logic is that a technicality, such as stale money orders resulting from official inaction, should not defeat a seasonably perfected appeal and work an injustice upon the appellant. The proper course for the CFI was not to dismiss the appeal but to order the replacement of the stale instruments. Accordingly, the Supreme Court modified the CFI’s order. It directed the City Court to transmit the records to the CFI and ordered the CFI to give due course to the appeal, conditioned upon petitioner’s payment in cash of the required fees within ten days from notice.