GR L 50298; (November, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. 50298 November 2, 1982
JOSEPH Y. PUNAY, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JOSE R. RAMOLETE, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Joseph Y. Punay filed a damages suit against private respondents. After an adverse decision, he timely filed a Notice of Appeal, a Motion to extend the period to file the record on appeal, and an Appeal Bond. The appeal bond was signed only by his counsel and the counsel’s wife as sureties, lacking Punay’s own signature as the principal obligor. Private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing this defect rendered the appeal unperfected.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Appeal Bond and submitted an amended bond. The respondent judge, however, denied the motion to amend and dismissed the appeal in an Order dated October 16, 1978. The judge relied on the opposition to the motion to amend, which echoed the grounds in the motion to dismiss, stating the original bond was fatally defective and the amendment came after the appeal period lapsed.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal based on a defective appeal bond.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order. On the procedural sequence, the Court found no rule requiring a motion to dismiss an appeal to be resolved before other motions. The judge’s denial of the motion to amend effectively resolved the motion to dismiss.
On the substantive merit, the dismissal was erroneous. The original bond, subscribed by two sureties binding themselves solidarily for the costs, constituted substantial compliance with Rule 41, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes no special form. Even assuming a defect, it was not a nullity. Rules of procedure should be liberally construed to secure just determinations. The appellant, acting in good faith, must be given an opportunity to cure such a defect. The amended bond was merely a correction. The judge’s refusal to allow the amendment and summary dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion. The appeal must be given due course upon approval of the amended bond.