G.R. No. L-27826 December 18, 1967
Pastora Gaspay, Francisca Ramos, Malo Corme, Valeriano Bengo, Pedro Castillo and Luis Felizco, petitioners-appellants, vs. The Hon. Cesar Sangco, Judge of the City Court of Manila, The Mota Hermanos and The Sheriff of Manila, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners-appellants filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to challenge the City Court of Manila’s order dismissing their appeal in an ejectment case. The City Court had dismissed the appeal on the ground that their motion for reconsideration was pro forma. The Court of First Instance dismissed their petition. Petitioners-appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court. Respondents-appellees moved to dismiss the appeal because the appellants’ brief failed to make a specific assignment of errors and lacked page references to the record as required by the Rules of Court. Petitioners-appellants opposed, arguing their brief substantially complied because the appeal raised only a single legal issue: whether their motion for reconsideration was pro forma.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the appellants’ failure to comply with the briefing requirements under the Rules of Court, and whether the motion for reconsideration filed in the city court was indeed pro forma.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal. The Court found the appellants’ brief deficient for lacking an assignment of errors and page references, which are intended to aid the court and facilitate orderly disposition. More importantly, the Court ruled the appeal was devoid of merit. The motion for reconsideration filed in the city court was correctly held to be pro forma. It raised two grounds: 1) lack of prior notice to vacate, and 2) condonation of unpaid rentals estopping ejectment. The Court of First Instance’s decision, which the Supreme Court adopted, found these grounds meritless. Notice was properly served, and petitioners acted in bad faith by refusing it. The alleged condonation lacked proof and, even if true, did not preclude ejectment. The motion failed to point out specific errors in the findings or conclusions as required to avoid being pro forma. The cases cited by appellants (Elnar v. Santos and Ylanan v. Mercado) were distinguished, as those motions substantially complied with the rules by specifically pointing out errors. Here, the motion did not. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.