PASTORA GASPAY, FRANCISCA RAMOS, MALO CORME, VALERIANO BENGO, PEDRO CASTILLO AND LUIS FELIZCO, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. THE HON. CESAR SANGCO, JUDGE OF THE CITY COURT OF MANI…

Gaspay versus Sangco

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Pastora Gaspay, Francisca Ramos, Malo Corme, Valeriano Bengo, Pedro Castillo, and Luis Felizco against Judge Cesar Sangco of the City Court of Manila. The petitioners were defendants in an ejectment case below. After the city court ruled against them, they sought relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila through a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, and lost there as well. They then appealed to the Supreme Court. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact lesson on two things every practitioner must master: what makes a motion for reconsideration pro forma, and what a brief must contain to survive a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Procedural History

The action began as an ejectment case in the City Court of Manila, which rendered judgment against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the city court treated as pro forma. From that ruling, the petitioners went to the Court of First Instance of Manila on a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, testing the validity of the city court's action. The Court of First Instance scrutinized the motion for reconsideration, found its two grounds wanting, and dismissed the petition. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal. Before the Supreme Court could reach the merits, the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the petitioners' brief made no specific assignment of errors and contained no page references to the record. The petitioners opposed, arguing substantial compliance, and the Supreme Court resolved both the motion and the appeal in one decision.

Facts

The petitioners were occupants of premises owned by the respondents. In February 1966, due notice to vacate was served on them, but they refused to receive it. The owner then wrote to them, inviting them to an amicable conference in its office, and they attended. When the ejectment complaint was later filed, the petitioners raised two defenses: that they had not been given previous notice to vacate, and that the unpaid rentals had been condoned, so that non-payment could no longer be a ground for ejectment.

The city court rejected both defenses and rendered judgment for the owner. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, reiterating the same two grounds. The city court held that the motion was pro forma, and the petitioners challenged that holding before the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The Court of First Instance carefully examined the motion and found nothing in it of substance. On the lack of notice, it found that notice had in fact been served and refused, and that the petitioners could not profit from their own wrong. On condonation, it found no proof, and observed that even if true, it would only show liberality on the owner's part which the petitioners should not turn against it. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. Their brief, five pages long, contained no specific assignment of errors and no page references to the record, and it lacked the decision of the court below as an appendix until eighteen days after receipt of the brief, when counsel was reminded of his duty.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal should be dismissed for the petitioners' brief failing to contain a specific assignment of errors and page references to the record.
• Whether or not the city court correctly treated the petitioners' motion for reconsideration as pro forma.

Applicable Provisions

Section 16 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, made applicable to the Supreme Court by Section 1 of Rule 56, governs the dismissal of appeals for a deficient brief. The Court invoked it as the basis for dismissing the appeal:

Section 16, Rule 46 made applicable to this case by Section 1 of Rule 56.

The Court also relied on the rule governing motions for reconsideration, as discussed in former Chief Justice Moran's commentary, which treats as pro forma a motion that fails to point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment not supported by the evidence or contrary to law:

For this reason, where a motion for a new trial is filed under the third paragraph of the preceding section and fails to point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions, it shall be treated as a motion pro forma intended merely to delay the proceedings and it shall not interrupt or suspend the period of time for the perfection of an appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. The petitioners argued that because only a single legal question was raised, an assignment of error was unnecessary and their brief substantially complied with the rules. The Court was not persuaded. It found the five-page brief deficient: it had no specific assignment of errors, no page references to the record, and no copy of the decision below as an appendix until eighteen days after receipt of the brief. The Court stressed that these requirements are not mere ornaments; they expedite the business of the appellate court, aid the justices in their investigation, and facilitate prompt and orderly disposition of cases. They must therefore be complied with, if not strictly, at least substantially.

On the second issue, the Court held that the city court did not act illegally, much less arbitrarily, in treating the motion for reconsideration as pro forma. The motion merely reiterated the two defenses of lack of notice and condonation, both of which the Court of First Instance had carefully scrutinized and found without merit. There was no material allegation of any essence that could persuade a reasonable judicial mind to change its decision. The Court distinguished the two cases invoked by the petitioners, Elnar versus Santos and Ylanan versus Mercado, on the ground that in those cases the motions for reconsideration pointed out specifically the findings not supported by the evidence or contrary to law, and in one of them the movant even reserved the right to submit argument. The petitioners' motion did no such thing.

Doctrine

A motion for reconsideration that does not point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions, is pro forma — a motion intended merely to delay the proceedings — and it does not interrupt or suspend the period for perfecting an appeal. A brief that fails to contain a specific assignment of errors and page references to the record is deficient, and the appeal may be dismissed under Section 16 of Rule 46. The requirements of the rules on briefs are not mere ornaments; they must be complied with, if not strictly, at least substantially, because they expedite the business of the appellate court and facilitate the prompt and orderly disposition of cases.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the appeal, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: a motion for reconsideration that does not specifically point out the findings not supported by the evidence or contrary to law is pro forma and does not suspend the period to appeal. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a valid motion for reconsideration and the consequences of a deficient appellant's brief.