G.R. No. L-26485 June 7, 1971
MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, SAN REMIGIO MINES, INC., and REAL COPPER MINE AGENTS, INC., petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental; THE HON. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE HON. FERNANDO S. BUSUEGO, JR., in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Mines; FELIPE MIJARES, LEONARDO MIJARES, LOLITA V. LOPEZ and PRECIOSA ENABE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corporation (MARINDUQUE), San Remigio Mines, Inc., and Real Copper Mine Agents, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, assailing an order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources that cancelled their Lode Lease Contract. The trial court, presided by respondent Judge Eduardo D. Enriquez, dismissed the petition. Petitioners timely filed their notice of appeal and an appeal bond but failed to serve a copy of the bond upon the lawyer for the private respondents.
Private respondents moved to deny the appeal, citing this failure to serve the bond copy and other defects: the bond appeared to secure only MARINDUQUE, not its co-petitioners, and it was signed by petitioners’ lawyer, Arsenio B. Yulo, Jr., whose authority to bind the corporation was not initially evident. Petitioners opposed, later submitting a corporate ratification of the lawyer’s act and offering to substitute a cash bond. The respondent judge disapproved the appeal bond and denied the appeal. Petitioners then filed this petition for mandamus to compel the approval of their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or unlawfully neglected a duty in disapproving the appeal bond and denying the appeal due to petitioners’ failure to serve a copy of the bond on the adverse party and the bond’s alleged defects.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The legal logic centers on the mandatory nature of procedural rules for perfecting an appeal. Rule 41, Section 3 requires the appellant to serve upon the adverse party and file with the court the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal within the reglementary period. Service of the appeal bond is as essential as its filing; it is not a mere formality. This requirement ensures the adverse party is notified and can object to the bond’s validity or sufficiency, which was precisely what occurred here as the bond had substantive defects.
The Court found petitioners’ failure to serve the bond was not excusable. Their claim of inadvertence—that a lawyer instructed a secretary who then tasked a messenger—was insufficient to constitute the “honest mistake” required to relax the rule. Furthermore, the bond itself was defective, as it secured only one of three appellants and was executed by a lawyer without contemporaneous proof of authority. While petitioners attempted a curative ratification, the initial non-compliance was fatal. The right to appeal is statutory, not inherent, and must be exercised in strict conformity with the prescribed procedure. The respondent judge correctly applied the rules and did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The preliminary injunction was dissolved.