CATALINO MALLARI, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. RURAL DE ABAYAT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Mallari versus Rural de Abayat

The Case

This is an appeal by the defendant, the Rural de Abayat, from an order of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The plaintiffs, Catalino Mallari and others, brought the action against the Rural de Abayat. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats an appeal that comes up on a bare record, where the appellant fails to carry the burden of showing error in the order appealed from, and the Court affirms with costs.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. That court issued an order dated the twenty-second day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one. The defendant, the Rural de Abayat, appealed from that order. The appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after regularly acquiring jurisdiction and after consideration of the record submitted by both parties, rendered its decision on the twenty-fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four.

Facts

The plaintiffs, Catalino Mallari and others, were the parties who obtained the order in their favor in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The defendant, the Rural de Abayat, was the party against whom that order was issued.

The Court of First Instance issued its order on the twenty-second day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one. From that order, the Rural de Abayat appealed.

The appeal was submitted by both parties for decision. The Supreme Court, upon the record, found no ground to disturb the order of the trial court.

Issues

• Whether or not the order of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga dated the twenty-second day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, should be affirmed on the record presented.
• Whether or not the appellant is entitled to a reversal of that order.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote or construe any statutory provision. It rests on the record and on the settled rule that an appellant must show error in the order appealed from. No provision is therefore quoted here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga dated the twenty-second day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one. The Court held that, having regularly acquired jurisdiction and after consideration of the record submitted by both parties, the order appealed from should stand.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellant was not entitled to a reversal. The appeal was taken from the order, and the Court found no reason in the record to set that order aside. The Court therefore affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

The Court further ordered the appellees to recover from the appellant the sum of forty pesos as costs.

Doctrine

An appellant who asks the Supreme Court to reverse an order of a trial court must show, on the record, that the order is erroneous. Where the record discloses no such error, the order appealed from is affirmed. The prevailing party is entitled to costs against the appellant, and the Court may fix the amount of those costs in its judgment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, with costs against the appellant, and ordered the appellant to pay the appellees forty pesos as costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an order appealed from stands unless the appellant shows error on the record, and here the Court affirmed with costs. Examiners use this case to test the burden of the appellant on appeal and the rule on costs against the losing appellant.