GR L 50081; (May, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-50081 May 31, 1982
SANTOS CODILLA, petitioner, vs. FLORENCIA LOPEZ, TEODORO VILLANUEVA, and THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, Branch III, MASBATE, MASBATE, respondents.
FACTS
The Municipal Court of Claveria, Masbate, rendered a decision in an unlawful detainer case on September 27, 1973, ordering petitioner Santos Codilla to vacate the premises, pay damages, and pay accrued rentals. Within the reglementary period, Codilla filed a notice of appeal, a supersedeas bond, and an appeal bond with a surety. The records were transmitted to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Masbate.
Subsequently, the CFI granted execution pending appeal. In opposing Codilla’s motion for reconsideration, private respondent Florencia Lopez argued that the appeal was not perfected because the Municipal Court had not approved the appeal bond. Respondent Judge agreed, dismissing the appeal on August 19, 1976, for failure to perfect it on time, relying on Section 5, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Codilla’s petition for relief was also denied, with the CFI stating it lost jurisdiction upon dismissing the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Municipal Court’s failure to approve the appeal bond meant the appeal was not perfected on time.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the CFI’s orders. The legal logic centers on the incorrect application of procedural rules. Respondent Judge erroneously applied Section 5, Rule 41, which governs appeals from Courts of First Instance to the Court of Appeals. That rule requires court approval for non-cash appeal bonds and deems an appeal perfected upon such approval.
The correct governing provisions are Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 40, which regulate appeals from municipal courts to Courts of First Instance. These rules only require the appellant to file a notice of appeal, pay the docket fee, and give a bond within the 15-day period. There is no requirement in Rule 40 for the municipal court to approve the appeal bond as a condition for perfecting the appeal. The appellant’s duty is merely to file the bond on time; the duty to approve it, if any, rests with the court and its failure to act should not prejudice the appellant.
The Court further held that, even assuming a defect in the bond, the general policy is to allow the appellant an opportunity to cure the defect rather than dismiss the appeal outright, especially when the bond was filed within the reglementary period. Therefore, the CFI committed reversible error in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the challenged orders and directed the CFI to give due course to the appeal.