G.R. No. L-6924 August 31, 1954
Gaspar M. Llamas and Encarnacion R. Llamas, petitioners, vs. Hon. Segundo S. Moscoso, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Rufo Raga, as Acting Provincial Sheriff of Leyte, and Ciriaco Enriquez, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Gaspar M. Llamas and Encarnacion R. Llamas (the wife being a daughter of the deceased Manuel Dioso) were adjudged in contempt of court in an intestate proceeding. The estate’s administrator is respondent Ciriaco Enriquez, the surviving spouse. The estate included conjugal lots, among them lot 57 (allocated to Encarnacion in a court-approved partial partition) and the contiguous lot 143-A-2-A-4. The partial partition order dated July 19, 1948, authorized the heirs to continue occupying the premises they were presently using until termination of the proceedings. Relations soured after respondent remarried and his motion to construct a house on lot 143-A-2-A-4 was opposed by petitioners and denied. Respondent then filed a motion to declare Gaspar Llamas in contempt for allegedly invading and constructing on that lot without authority. After receiving evidence, the court on February 25, 1952, declared both petitioners in contempt for interfering with the administrator’s possession, sentencing them to imprisonment, a fine, and an accounting. On March 24, immediately after the sentence was read to them (without counsel present), the spouses verbally announced in open court their appeal and asked the judge to fix the appeal bond, which he did and approved that same day. Their counsel, then in Manila, filed a written notice of appeal on April 11. Respondent contended the appeal was filed out of time and moved for execution. The court disapproved the appeal and ordered execution. Petitioners seek certiorari to annul the orders or, alternatively, mandamus to compel allowance of their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the petitioners’ appeal from the contempt judgment and ordering its execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the alternative prayer for a writ of mandamus. The Court found that technically, the written notice of appeal was filed three days late (18 days after the sentence). However, equity demanded that the appeal be given due course because: (1) on the very day of the sentence, petitioners had verbally announced their appeal in open court in the presence of opposing counsel and filed the appeal bond fixed and approved by the court; (2) petitioners, unassisted by counsel at the time, were given to understand that perfecting the appeal required filing the bond; (3) the delay in filing the written notice was due to counsel being in Manila and not receiving a copy of the sentence until April 11, when he immediately filed the notice; and (4) under the rules, the appellate court may in its discretion entertain an appeal despite failure to give written notice if the interests of justice so require. The trial court was ordered to give due course to the appeal. No costs.