REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU AND BABY GO, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER GREGO…

On March 4, 1960, Gregorio Go, father and natural guardian of Baby
Go, a minor of 9 years, filed a verified petition in behalf of said
Baby Go, for the latter’s change of name of Alberto Go. The petition
was accomplished in due form, hearing was held, after which the Court
on October 8, 1960 rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which
reads—

“The Courts finds the petition to be well-founded
and therefore grants the same; and pursuant thereto hereby authorizes
the name of Baby Go, registered in the local Civil Registrar of Cebu
City, to be changed to ALBERT GO and that henceforward this child
shall bear the name Alberto Go”.

On November 8, 1960, the Solicitor General, in representation of the
Government, filed a Notice of Appeal from the above decision and on
November 9, 1960, the requisite Record on Appeal. On November 12, 1960,
Judge Amador E. Gomez promulgated an Order, denying the appeal
interposed on the ground that the same is frivolous. Alleging that the
respondent Judge, in denying the appeal and not giving due course
thereto, and in refusing to approve the Record on Appeal, acted in
grave abuse of discretion and unlawfully neglected the performance of
an act specially enjoined upon him as a duty, where there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
Government presented the petition at bar. Answering, respondents
justified their actuations by citing the order denying the appeal,
wherein it was stated that the Court saw no valid reason for the
appeal; all requirements had been complied with; at the hearing, the
City Fiscal appeared in behalf of the Solicitor General, who
crossed-examined the lone witness for the petitioner, and scrutinized
both testimonial and documentary evidence offered; the Fiscal submitted
the case without argument; that during the hearing on the Record on
Appeal, the City Fiscal could not point out wherein lies the error or
mistake’ alleged to have been committed by the trial court, and upon
which the appeal could be based, except to say that the City Fiscal’s
office received instructions from the Solicitor General to interpose an
appeal.

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the appeal was filed
within the reglementary period. We believe that it is not within the
province of the lower court to declare, at that stage of the
proceedings, whether an appeal is frivolous or not. Such duty devolves
upon the appellate Courts. Where an appeal is presented on time,
attended by the requirements of law, the same should be given due
course (Sec. 3, Rule 41). An appeal, being an essential part of our
judicial system and, in this case, proper, courts are enjoined to
facilitate its taking due course. It is true that the City Fiscal could
not point wherein lies the error in the order granting the petition for
change of name. We think, however, that it was sufficient for the City
Fiscal to inform the Court that he was instructed by the Solicitor
General to interpose an appeal, indicating that, as to him, the
decision was against the law and the evidence. It can not be said that
the Solicitor General just wanted to interpose an appeal by mere
caprice. It would be for the benefit of all concerned that the appeal
of the State be given due course.

Wherefore, the writ is granted; the order of November 12, 1960,
reversed, and another entered, ordering the respondent Judge to give
due course to the appeal interposed by the Government. No costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.