GR L 13399; (January, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13399; January 30, 1960
ALBERTA VICENCIO and EMILIANO SIMEON, petitioners, vs. GAVINO TUMALAD and HON. JUDGE GREGORIO T. LANTIN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Alberta Vicencio and Emiliano Simeon were defendants in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 43073) filed by respondent Gavino Tumalad and Generoso R. Tumalad in the Court of First Instance of Manila. After the defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied, they did not present evidence, and judgment was rendered against them. The defendants filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal on November 8-9, 1957. The appeal bond, executed by Atty. Jose Q. Calingo and Familia E. Calingo, was for Sixty Pesos (P60.00) and included a sworn declaration of solvency over that amount. The respondent judge, Hon. Gregorio T. Lantin, disapproved the bond, deeming it insufficient and akin to a “mere promissory note,” and consequently denied the appeal. Petitioners moved to set aside the disapproval, offering a new bond with a surety, but the judge denied the offer as untimely. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus to reverse the order and compel the court to give due course to their appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal bond filed by the petitioners, which included a sworn declaration of solvency by the bondsmen but was not issued by a surety company, is sufficient under the law to perfect an appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court held that the appeal bond filed by the petitioners substantially complied with legal requirements. The law does not prescribe a special form for an appeal bond; it only requires that the bond be for sixty pesos and conditioned for the payment of costs that the appellate court may award against the appellant. The bond in question met these conditions. The Court cited the precedent in Maria Javier Cruz, et al. vs. Hon. Juan P. Enriquez (103 Phil., 62), where a similar bond was deemed sufficient. The respondent judge’s assumption that only a surety company could act as bondsman was unjustified, especially since the bondsmen had declared under oath that they were solvent for the bond amount. If solvency was questioned, the proper procedure was to allow the appellants to prove the bondsmen’s worth or substitute them, not to dismiss the appeal outright. The Court found that the respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion in disapproving the bond and denying the appeal. The writ was granted, and the appeal in the lower court was ordered to be given due course.