GR L 22137; (May, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22137, May 19, 1966
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA PORT SERVICE, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE CARMELINO ALVENDIA, Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila and BATAAN REFINING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
The Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVI, presided by Judge Carmelino Alvendia, reversed a Municipal Court decision and sentenced the defendants (Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service) to pay Bataan Refining Corporation the sum of P1,140.24 plus interest and costs. Upon receiving notice of the decision on April 1, 1963, the defendants filed a notice of appeal on April 26, 1963, accompanied by an appeal bond, followed by a record on appeal on April 30, 1963. The appeal bond was executed only by “Manila Port Service by Julian C. Chaves, Manager” and “Standard Insurance Co., Inc. by Primo A. Cruz, Vice-President.” The trial court, noting the absence of Manila Railroad Company’s signature on the bond, rejected the record on appeal in an order dated May 27, 1963, declaring the decision final as to Manila Railroad Company for failure to file its appeal bond. Motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting the petitioners to seek a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel the trial court to give due course to their appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal bond filed solely by Manila Port Service, which allegedly lacks a separate legal personality, should be considered as a bond for Manila Railroad Company, thereby perfecting the latter’s appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the appeal bond was not binding on Manila Railroad Company because it was not signed or authorized by the company. The bond was executed only by Manila Port Service and the surety company. The Court noted that Manila Port Service, as alleged by petitioners, is merely a name or style for conducting arrastre service without a legal personality of its own. Consequently, the bond was void and unenforceable for lack of a principal debtor, as the surety’s obligation presupposes an enforceable obligation against another party. The respondent court correctly declared the judgment final against Manila Railroad Company due to its failure to file a proper appeal bond within the reglementary period. Costs were imposed on petitioners.