JOSEPH Y. PUNAY, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE JOSE R. RAMOLETE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU; THE MORNING TIMES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS IN CIVIL CASE NO. R-9790 CFI, CEBU, ETC…

Punay versus Ramolete

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus filed by Joseph Y. Punay against Judge Jose R. Ramolete of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch Three, and against the private respondents Morning Times and others. Punay asks the Supreme Court to set aside the trial judge's order dismissing his appeal in a civil case for damages, and to compel the judge to resolve the motion to dismiss filed by the private respondents. The case matters because it fixes the standard for a valid appeal bond and confirms that a defective but good-faith bond is not a nullity; it may be cured by amendment, and procedure must be liberally construed to secure a just determination.

Procedural History

Punay filed a complaint for damages against Morning Times and others before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch Three, presided over by Judge Ramolete. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the private respondents. Punay's counsel received a copy of the decision, and within the thirty-day period to appeal, Punay filed his notice of appeal, a motion to extend the time to file the record on appeal, and an appeal bond. The private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, and Punay moved to amend the appeal bond. The trial judge denied the motion to amend, rejected the amended bond, and dismissed the appeal; a motion for reconsideration was denied. Punay then came to the Supreme Court by petition for mandamus, raising the propriety of resolving the motion to amend before the motion to dismiss, and the validity of the order dismissing the appeal.

Facts

On January 16, 1967, Punay filed an action for damages against the private respondents in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch Three. After trial, the court rendered a decision on July 17, 1978 in favor of the private respondents. Punay's counsel received a copy of the decision on August 8, 1978.

On September 4, 1978, before the thirty-day period to appeal expired, Punay filed his notice of appeal, a motion to extend the period to file the record on appeal, and an appeal bond. The bond was signed only by his counsel Jose Ch. Catungal and the latter's wife Agapita Catungal as bondsmen; it did not bear Punay's own signature. On September 13, 1978, the private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that no valid appeal was taken on time because the bond was fatally defective for lack of the appellant's signature.

On September 25, 1978, Punay filed a motion for leave to amend the appeal bond and for admission of the amended bond, and opposed the motion to dismiss as moot. The private respondents opposed the amendment, insisting that there was nothing to amend because the first bond was fatally defective. On October 16, 1978, the trial judge denied the motion to amend, rejected the amended bond, and dismissed the appeal. Reconsideration was denied on November 23, 1978. On January 5, 1979, the judge declared the motion to resolve the motion to dismiss moot and academic because the appeal had already been dismissed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial judge gravely abused his discretion in resolving the motion to amend the appeal bond before resolving the motion to dismiss the appeal.
• Whether or not the trial judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was defective because it lacked the signature of the appellant.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, on the appeal bond, provides:

The appeal bond shall answer for the payment of costs. It shall be in the amount of one hundred and twenty pesos (P120) unless the court shall fix a different amount. If the appeal bond is not in cash it must be approved by the court before the transmittal of the record on appeal to the appellate court.

This provision governs the validity of the bond Punay filed, and the Court reads it as prescribing no special form, only an amount to answer for costs.

Section 2 of Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court, on liberal construction, provides:

These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.

This provision supports the Court's holding that a defective bond given in good faith may be cured by amendment rather than punished by dismissal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion. The motion to dismiss the appeal was in effect resolved when the judge denied the motion to amend the bond and rejected the amended bond, because the opposition to the amendment rested on the same grounds as the motion to dismiss. The Court also noted that nowhere in the Revised Rules of Court is it provided that a motion to dismiss an appeal must first be resolved before any other motion or pleading.

On the second issue, the Court held that the dismissal was erroneous. An appeal bond duly subscribed by two persons as sureties, who bind themselves solidarily to pay the amount required, conditioned on the payment of costs, is in substantial compliance with the law and is not defective. The provision on the appeal bond prescribes no special form; it only requires the amount of one hundred twenty pesos to answer for costs, and in the form submitted the bond could answer for costs. Even granting that the first bond was defective, justice demanded that Punay be given an opportunity to cure the defect by filing another bond, which was not a new bond but the original corrected. The Court applied the principle that rules of procedure should be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just determination, and quoted former Chief Justice Moran that a defective appeal bond, which is not a nullity, given in good faith and not for delay, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court to order its amendment, and the appeal should not be dismissed without giving the appellant an opportunity to perfect the bond. The judge therefore gravely abused his discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction.

Doctrine

An appeal bond subscribed by two sureties who bind themselves solidarily to pay the amount required, conditioned on the payment of costs, is in substantial compliance with the law and is not defective. A defective appeal bond that is not a nullity, given in good faith and not for delay, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to order its amendment, and the appellant must be given an opportunity to perfect it. Rules of procedure are to be liberally construed to promote their object and assist the parties in obtaining a just determination.

Disposition

The Court set aside the order dismissing the appeal and ordered the respondent judge to deny the motion to dismiss of Morning Times and others and to give due course to Punay's appeal upon approving the amended appeal bond, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a defective appeal bond that is not a nullity, given in good faith and not for delay, confers jurisdiction on the court to order its amendment and must not be visited with dismissal. Examiners use this case on the substantial compliance standard for appeal bonds and on the liberal construction of the Rules of Court.