G.R. No. L-10301; February 28, 1958
MARIA JAVIER CRUZ and JOSE MA. CRUZ, petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and EVANGELINO LASERNA, respondents.

FACTS

On July 15, 1955, respondent Evangelino Laserna filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Case No. 1397, G.L.R.O. Record Nos. 875, 917 and 699) seeking consolidation of title and ownership over a property in his favor and the cancellation and issuance of new certificates of title. Petitioners Maria Javier Cruz and Jose Ma. Cruz opposed, claiming a right to repurchase under Article 1606 of the New Civil Code. On August 6, 1955, respondent Judge Juan P. Enriquez granted Laserna’s petition. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then timely filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal. The record on appeal was approved on December 12, 1955. However, on December 17, 1955, the respondent judge disapproved the appeal bond, finding it defective as it “consisted merely in the signatures of two lawyers.” The bond, notarized on October 8, 1955, was signed by two lawyers as sureties and was conditioned for the payment of costs. On January 4, 1956, Laserna moved to dismiss the appeal. Petitioners filed a new appeal bond on January 7, 1956. On January 10, 1956, the respondent judge issued an order dismissing the appeal, finding that the new bond was filed out of time and the appeal was not perfected within the legal period. A motion for reconsideration was denied on February 8, 1956.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was defective and the subsequent bond was filed out of time.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the order dismissing the appeal, and ordered the respondent judge to give due course to the appeal. The Court held that the original appeal bond substantially complied with Section 5, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which only requires a bond in the amount of sixty pesos (unless otherwise fixed) conditioned for the payment of costs. The bond filed by the petitioners, signed by two lawyer-sureties, met these requirements and was not defective. The approval of the record on appeal implied approval of the original bond. Even assuming the bond was defective, the petitioners acted diligently in curing the defect by filing a new bond. The respondent judge was overly technical in applying the rules, thereby depriving the petitioners of their right to appeal. The dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion.