TEODORO L. URBAYAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, JOHN GRAY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal taken by the plaintiff to the Court of Appeals, whence it
was forwarded to us on the ground that it involves purely legal questions.

The case originated in the municipal court of the City of Tacloban, where
appellant Teodoro L. Urbayan filed a complaint against Caltex (Philippines) Inc.
and appellee John Gray for recovery of damages for breach of contract. John Gray
filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages in the sum of P2,000.00 and
attorney’s fees of P300.00. Caltex, on its part, moved to dismiss. Its motion
was granted by the municipal court in an order dated September 7, 1954. The case
was set for trial with respect to Gray on the following September 17.

On the last mentioned date appellant failed to appear and the complaint was
dismissed as against Gray for non-suit. Gray was thereupon permitted to present
evidence in support of his counterclaim, but a little later the same day the
court issued the following order:

“Within two hours after this case had been dismissed with respect to
defendant John Gray for failure of the plaintiff to appear before this Court and
plaintiff declared in default on counterclaim against him; and after the said
defendant presented his evidence in support of his counterclaim plaintiff with
his counsel Atty. Filomeno Montejo appeared before the Court and orally asked
that the order of dismissal of the complaint and default on counterclaim be
lifted. The petition being in accordance with the Rules of Court it was
granted.

“Nevertheless, instead of asking for a re-trial or a new trial plaintiff
announced that he is not going to present evidence and manifested his intention
to appeal against the decision of this Court to the Court of First Instance.

“The order of dismissal of the complaint against John Gray for non-suit and
default of plaintiff on the counterclaim is hereby lifted and the appeal of the
plaintiff is hereby given due course.

“So ordered.

“Done at the City of Tacloban this 17th day of September,
1954.”

The municipal court then rendered its decision, also dated September 17,
1954, ordering Urbayan to pay defendant Gray P200.00 as moral damages, P100.00
as exemplary or corrective damages, P150.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs. Copy
of the decision was received by appellant’s counsel on September 28, 1954.
However, on September 17, that is, on the date of the decision and eleven days
before appellant received a copy thereof, he filed a notice of appeal worded as
follows:

“Comes now the plaintiff in the above-entitled case thru the undersigned
attorney and to this Hon. Court respectfully presents this notice of appeal
against the order dismissing the complaint against defendant, CALTEX
(PHILIPPINES) Inc., and against the other defendant John Gray.

“Tacloban City, September 17, 1954.”

On September 28, 1954 the municipal court issued an order forwarding the case
to the Court of First Instance of Leyte, where on the following October 11 John
Gray filled a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the same had been
taken only from the order dismissing the complaint with respect to Caltex but
not from the decision on his counterclaim against appellant. On December 1, 1954
the Court of First Instance granted the motion and dismissed the appeal as
against Gray, but remanded the case to the court below for further proceedings
in so far as defendant Caltex was concerned. It is this order dismissing the
appeal with respect to Gray that is now before us for review.

The question as to whether or not the appeal was correctly dismissed depends
upon how the notice pf appeal filed by appellant on September 17, 1954 should be
construed. The reference made therein is to the order of the municipal court
“dismissing the complaint against defendant Caltex (Philippines) Inc. and
against the other defendant John Gray.” At first blush it would seem that the
appeal was ineffective as against Gray, because on one hand the order of
dismissal on the ground of non-suit had been set aside and the complaint
reinstated by the municipal court with respect to him, and on the other hand
appellant had not yet received a copy of the decision. However, appellant’s
intention may be clearly inferred from the court’s order lifting the declaration
of non-suit. It is there stated that the defendant waived presentation of his
evidence and announced instead that he would appeal from the decision,
anticipating, with reason, that the decision would be adverse to him. He must
have been prompted to make the waiver because after all the effect of his appeal
would be to vacate the judgment and to have the case tried de novo in the
Court of First Instance.

The circumstance that a copy of the decision was actually received by
appellant only on September 28 does not necessarily militate against his
announced intention to appeal therefrom on September 17, as he was then already
certain that any decision the court might render would be adverse to him
inasmuch as only the defendant Gray had presented evidence. The decisive fact is
that appellant intended to appeal and did so by filing the corresponding notice
of appeal, and that the same could have been from no other action of the court
than its decision. Technicalities, such as the inaccurate reference in the
notice of appeal to a non-existent order of dismissal of the complaint as
against defendant Gray, should give way to the realities of the situation.

In connection with appellant’s contention, subject of the first error
assigned by him in his brief, that the municipal court of Tacloban should have
been declared as without jurisdiction to take cognizance of appellee’s
counterclaim in view of the amount involved, it appears that the same was not
submitted either to the said court or to the Court of First Instance for
resolution. Hence the assignment of such error in the present appeal is
premature.

The order appealed from is set aside and the case remanded to the court below
for further proceedings.

No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.