G.R. No. L-4625; October 29, 1952
EUGENIO EVANGELISTA and SIMEON EVANGELISTA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. BRIGIDA SORIANO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellees filed an action for detainer and collection of unpaid rentals in the Municipal Court, which rendered judgment in their favor. The defendant-appellant appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) by filing a supersedeas bond. In the CFI, the defendant filed an answer raising defenses, including the illegality of the rentals and a counterclaim. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant vacated the leased premises on January 19, 1949. On January 21, 1949, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case, seeking payment from the supersedeas bond and withdrawal of rentals deposited by the defendant, and waiving certain unpaid rentals. On the same date, the defendant and her counsel failed to appear at the scheduled trial. The CFI issued an order deeming the defendant’s non-appearance as tantamount to a withdrawal of her appeal, reviving the Municipal Court’s judgment, and ordering the record remanded to the Municipal Court for execution under Section 9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. On January 24, 1949, the defendant’s counsel filed a motion to suspend proceedings, informing the court that the defendant had died on January 9, 1949, and explaining that his non-appearance was due to a belief that an amicable settlement was being negotiated. The CFI, on January 29, 1949, treated its January 21 order as having disposed of both motions. On May 18, 1949, the CFI authorized the plaintiffs to withdraw the deposited rentals and the supersedeas bond. The defendant’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acted correctly in deeming the defendant’s failure to appear at trial as a withdrawal of her appeal, reviving the Municipal Court’s judgment, and ordering execution thereof.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the CFI dated January 29, 1949, and May 18, 1949, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held:
1. Under Section 9, Rule 40, only the appellant can withdraw an appeal; such withdrawal revives the judgment against the appellant. The appellees (plaintiffs) could not seek withdrawal of the appeal, as that would leave them without a judgment, the original judgment having been vacated upon perfection of the appeal.
2. The defendant’s failure to appear at trial could not be deemed a withdrawal of her appeal. The CFI was not authorized to dismiss the appeal on that ground; its duty was to hear the plaintiffs’ evidence and render judgment on the merits, unless justified in postponing the hearing.
3. The CFI’s order of January 21, 1949, was not a judgment on the merits and was a nullity, as it contained no findings of fact upon which a judgment could be based, contrary to Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution .
4. The authority under Section 8, Rule 72 (for execution pending appeal in detainer cases upon failure to pay rentals) does not alter the effect of an appeal under Section 9, Rule 40. An appeal vacates the inferior court’s judgment, and the case stands for trial de novo in the CFI.
5. Regarding the defendant’s death, the CFI should have complied with Section 17, Rule 3, requiring substitution by the legal representative, but it could not do so because it erroneously considered the January 21 order as a final judgment.