G.R. No. L-32094 November 24, 1972
CORAZON V. AGONCILLO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ALFREDO CATOLICO (As Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite); and EMILIO AGUINALDO, JR., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from Special Proceedings No. N-705 concerning the intestate estate of spouses Emilio Aguinaldo and Maria Agoncillo. On September 22, 1964, the Court of First Instance of Cavite appointed Emilio Aguinaldo, Jr. as administrator of the joint estate. Petitioner Corazon V. Agoncillo, the niece and sole heir of Maria Agoncillo, moved for reconsideration, praying for her appointment as the separate administratrix of her aunt’s estate. This motion was denied on November 6, 1965. On January 20, 1966, Agoncillo perfected her appeal by filing the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. The then-presiding judge, Jose B. Jimenez, withheld action to allow the parties to pursue an amicable settlement. Judge Jimenez was later transferred, and the sala remained without a permanent judge until respondent Judge Alfredo Catolico assumed office in June 1969. On July 24, 1969, Judge Catolico, motu proprio, declared Agoncillo’s appeal abandoned and disapproved it.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing motu proprio the petitioner’s already perfected appeal on the ground of abandonment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting the petition. The Court held that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal on its own motion. The legal logic is anchored on the rules of procedure governing appeals. After a party has timely filed the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal, the appeal is deemed perfected, and the subsequent step of approving the record on appeal is a duty of the court. The Rules of Court do not grant the trial court authority to dismiss a perfected appeal motu proprio on the ground of failure to prosecute or abandonment. Under Section 3 of Rule 46, dismissal on such grounds may be sought by the appellee only after the approval of the record on appeal and upon the appellant’s failure to transmit the record to the appellate court. The power to dismiss an appeal for abandonment is expressly vested in the appellate court under Rule 50. The trial court’s only ground for dismissal under Rule 41 is untimely filing of appeal requirements. The Court emphasized that the judge’s inaction, compounded by the transfer of the previous judge and the vacancy in the sala, should not prejudice the appellant. The proper course was for Judge Catolico to inquire about the status of the amicable settlement and set a peremptory period for its conclusion, not to dismiss the appeal outright. The Court thus ordered the trial court to give due course to the appeal.