GR 31690; (February, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31690 February 24, 1981
E. RAZON, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JOSE L. MOYA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch X) and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Hartford Fire Insurance Company filed a collection suit against petitioner E. Razon, Inc. before the Court of First Instance of Manila. During pre-trial, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts, agreeing that the only issue for resolution was the applicability of the Revised Management Contract, given that the consignee’s formal claim was filed beyond the 30-day period stipulated therein. The case was submitted for decision based on memoranda. The trial court ruled against the petitioner, finding the contract inapplicable due to total non-delivery of the shipment, and ordered payment.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal to the Court of Appeals. Respondent judge, however, dismissed the appeal, reasoning that since the case was decided on a stipulation of facts, only questions of law were involved; thus, under Republic Act 5440, appeal should have been by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s subsequent petition for mandamus to compel approval of the appeal, upholding the trial court’s disallowance.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the appeal on the ground that it raised only questions of law, thereby mandating a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
RULING
The trial court and the Court of Appeals committed procedural error. While Republic Act 5440 grants the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions involving only questions of law, the Rules of Court do not authorize a trial court to disallow a timely perfected appeal on that specific ground. Rule 41 provides that the sole instance for a trial court to dismiss an appeal is for failure to file the notice of appeal, appeal bond, or record on appeal within the reglementary period. An appeal, being an essential part of the judicial system, must be given due course if procedurally compliant. The proper course of action for the trial court was to approve the appeal; it would then be the duty of the Court of Appeals to certify the case to the Supreme Court for involving only legal questions.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. A writ of mandamus to compel approval of the appeal would serve no useful purpose, as the substantive issue was already correctly resolved. The stipulation of facts confined the issue to the applicability of the Revised Management Contract. The trial court’s ruling that the contract does not apply in cases of total non-delivery is supported by jurisprudence. Therefore, allowing the appeal would be futile and a waste of judicial resources, causing no substantial prejudice or denial of justice to the petitioner.