G.R. No. 44970 ; March 31, 1936
RAMON L. BLANCO, petitioner, vs. JOSE BERNABE, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila, and THE LAWYERS COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING CO., respondents.

FACTS

In a civil case before the Municipal Court of Manila, judgment was rendered against petitioner Ramon L. Blanco. He timely filed a notice of appeal and submitted a money order for the appellate court docket fee. He also sent a communication and a money order for P25 to the Collector of Internal Revenue to serve as an appeal bond, as required by law for appeals from municipal court judgments. However, the Collector of Internal Revenue refused to accept the deposit, stating he had no legal authority to do so. Blanco then attached the money order to the court record. The respondent judge refused to give due course to the appeal because Blanco did not present the official deposit certificate from the Collector, which was ordinarily required under Section 76 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure).

ISSUE

Whether the appeal was perfected despite the lack of a deposit certificate from the Collector of Internal Revenue, due to the Collector’s refusal to accept the deposit.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus, directing the respondent judge to certify the appeal to the Court of First Instance. The Court held that the purpose of requiring the deposit certificate was merely to evidence that the required deposit had been made. Since the deposit was actually tendered within the prescribed period but refused by the Collector without legal basis, the failure to present the certificate was not attributable to the appellant. Procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote justice and not to sacrifice substantial rights on mere technicalities. The appeal was deemed duly perfected, and the judge had a ministerial duty to forward the record.

AI Generated by Armztrong.