G.R. No. L-6079 April 29, 1953
SOFRONIO GAMMAD, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MANUEL ARRANZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, GERARDA TOTTO and EPIFANIO DAUS, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 294 of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, judgment was rendered against petitioners Sofronio, Crisanta, and Catalina Gammad in favor of respondents Gerarda Totto and Epifanio Daus. Petitioners received a copy of the decision on June 12, 1952. On June 14, 1952, they filed a notice of appeal and a record on appeal, furnishing copies to the appellees. For the appeal bond, they deposited a cash bond of P60 with the clerk of court but did not serve notice of this deposit on the appellees or the court. The record on appeal was amended and corrected at least twice, with the final amended version filed on July 28, 1952, but it was never approved by the court. On July 18, 1952, respondents filed a motion for execution of the judgment. On August 1, 1952, they filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that petitioners failed to serve notice of the deposit of the appeal bond and to submit said bond for court approval within the 30-day period from notice of the decision. On August 21, 1952, respondent Judge Manuel Arranz issued an order dismissing the appeal, citing the case of Price Stabilization Corporation, et al. vs. Castelo, et al. Petitioners then filed this petition for mandamus to compel the respondent Judge to approve the appeal and to enjoin the issuance of an order of execution.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge correctly dismissed the appeal on the grounds that petitioners failed to serve notice of the deposit of the cash appeal bond and to secure its court approval within the 30-day period for perfecting an appeal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the order dismissing the appeal. The Court held that while the case of Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Castelo stated that a cash appeal bond requires court approval and that mere deposit is insufficient without notice to the adverse party and the court, the decisive ruling applicable is from Espartero, et al. vs. Ladaw, et al. In Espartero, it was held that it is not necessary for an appellant to secure court approval of the appeal bond within the 30-day period; it is sufficient that the appeal bond is filed within that period, and the court may approve it subsequently. In the present case, petitioners filed their cash appeal bond, notice of appeal, and record on appeal within the prescribed period. They had done all that was required to perfect their appeal. Therefore, their appeal may not be dismissed. The respondent Judge was directed to approve the appeal and forward the case to the appellate court after approving the cash appeal bond, either in its present amount or in an increased amount according to his sound discretion. Costs were awarded against respondents Totto and Daus.