GR L 8276; (May, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8276; May 17, 1955
JOSE B. GAMBOA, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, JOSE V. BUENAVENTURA, PEDRO H. PILAR and FELIX PERONILLA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose B. Gamboa filed a civil case against the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and three individual defendants. The respondent court, in an order dated March 25, 1954, dismissed the original complaint against the three individual defendants for lack of cause of action. The case against PNB remained pending due to its answer and counterclaim. Subsequently, Gamboa sought to file an amended complaint. The respondent court, in an order dated August 16, 1954, denied the admission of this amended complaint. Gamboa then filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal from that denial order. The respondent court, in its order of September 18, 1954, refused to allow or approve the record on appeal. Gamboa filed this petition to compel the allowance of the record on appeal and to enjoin the trial court from proceeding with the case against PNB pending appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent court can disallow or refuse to approve a record on appeal filed by the plaintiff from an order denying the admission of an amended complaint, where such order is final and the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the writ. The order of the respondent court denying the admission of the amended complaint is a final order, not an interlocutory one, and is therefore appealable. Since the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal were filed within the reglementary period, the respondent court has no discretion to disallow the record on appeal. The Court directed the respondent court to approve the record on appeal. It dissolved the preliminary injunction, allowing the trial between Gamboa and PNB to proceed based on the original complaint, answer, and counterclaim. The Court explicitly declined to rule on whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the amended complaint or on the sufficiency of the amended complaint’s allegations, limiting its decision to the appealability of the denial order.