GR 56590; (May, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-56590 May 29, 1981
PERLA COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch IV-Tagaytay City and MIGUEL ILAGAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Perla Compañia de Seguros, Inc. was sentenced by the respondent judge to pay private respondent Miguel Ilagan a sum of money in an action for enforcement of an insurance policy. Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and an appeal bond. The appeal bond was executed by two lawyers, Rodrigo Y. Arandia and Porfirio B. Yabut, who jointly and severally bound themselves in favor of Ilagan for the payment of costs. The bond was not signed by petitioner itself as the principal appellant. Ilagan moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the bond was void for lack of a principal debtor. The respondent judge agreed, disapproved the bond, declared the judgment final and executory, and ordered execution.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the appeal bond and dismissing the appeal on the technical ground that the bond lacked a principal debtor.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the respondent judge’s orders. The Court emphasized a liberal policy in the perfection of appeals, particularly concerning appeal bonds. The core legal principle is that a mere technical defect in an appeal bond does not warrant dismissal of the appeal if the bond substantially complies with the law by securing the payment of costs for the appellee. The bond executed by the lawyers, who were petitioner’s counsel, effectively insured payment of costs to Ilagan. They are estopped from denying liability, and petitioner, through prosecuting the appeal and verifying the petition, ratified the bond. The trial court’s duty under Rule 41, Section 5 was to examine the bond and, if defective, allow correction within a reasonable time, not to peremptorily dismiss the appeal. The cited precedent, Manila Railroad Co. vs. Alvendia, was distinguished and its application was inappropriate. The appeal bond was in substantial conformity with the Rules; thus, the appeal should be given due course. The records were ordered transmitted to the Court of Appeals.