JOSE A. PATERNO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE CITY OF MANILA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The plaintiff, Jose A. Paterno, is the owner of a  certain parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon, which appears  in the tax book of  the  city assessor  and collector’s office as lot  No. 2, block 71, district of Santa Cruz, Manila.  This property was assessed  for the years 1901-2  at the sum of  $16,752  United  States  currency. According to the assessment revision of 1903, the valuation placed on said property was $10,587 United States currency. The  tax paid upon the former assessment was  $418.80 for both  years.   According  to  the revised  assessment it should have been $264.67.  The plaintiff claims that under the provisions of Act No. 975 of the Philippine  Commission the difference, equivalent  to $154.13 United  States  currency, or  P308.26, should be refunded.  Judgment for the said  amount of P308.26 has been  rendered  by one of the Courts of First Instance of the city of Manila  in favor of the plaintiff, and from this judgment the  defendant has appealed.

Counsel  for appellant  in  his printed brief makes no specific assignment of errors, but argues in  a general  way two questions.  The appellee insists that this appeal should be dismissed and the judgment affirmed for the reason  that the appellant has not complied  with the  rules of this court with reference to the specification of alleged  errors.  Rules 19 and 20 are as follows:

“19. Prefixed  to  the  brief of  the  appellant, but stated separately, shall  be an assignment of errors  intended to be urged.  Each  specification of error shall  be separately, distinctly, and concisely stated without repetition,  and  they shall be numbered consecutively.  All briefs shall be printed and shall exhibit an abstract of the argument on the points of law or fact to be discussed, with reference to the pages of the record and  the authorities  relied upon in  support of each point.  The brief of the appellant shall  also contain a concise  statement of the facts in the  case.

“20. No error not affecting  the jurisdiction  over  the subject-matter will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors and relied upon in the brief.”

The above rules were promulgated by this court by virtue of the power  conferred upon it  by section  6  of the Code of Civil Procedure.  This  section provides as  follows:

“The judges of the  Supreme Court shall  prepare rules regulating the conduct of business in the Supreme  Court and in the Courts of First Instance.  The  rules shall  be uniform for all  Courts of First  Instance throughout the Islands.  Such rules, when duly made and promulgated and not in  conflict with  the laws  of  the United States  or  of the Philippine Islands, shall be binding  and must  be observed, but no judgment shall be reversed by reason of a failure of the court to comply with such rules unless the substantial rights of a party have been impaired by such failure.”

In the case of La Capellania del Convento de Tambobong vs. Antonio (8  Phil. Rep.,  683), judgment having  been rendered  against the  petitioner as to a  part of the land described in the  petition,  the  plaintiff appealed, and this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Willard, with reference to assignment of errors, said (p.  684):

“But in this court he (the appellant)  has neither assigned as error, nor argued in his brief, the rulings adverse to him made in the court below.  His appeal must,  therefore,  be considered as abandoned.”

It was  the duty of the appellant to prefix to its brief an assignment of  errors.  Each specification of error should have been distinctly and concisely stated.   The rules  of this court  are few and simple.  They  are the laws  of the court and  must be obeyed until repealed, unless it can  be shown that they are in conflict with the laws of the United States  or  of the  Philippine Islands. Rules  19 and 20 are not repugnant to any law in force in this  jurisdiction.

“A rule of court can not operate so as to render  valid anything which is void in law, nor can it supersede a statute. But where a court is authorized to establish  its own  rules, such rules, when  not repugnant to or  in  conflict with the organic laws, have all the force of law, and  likewise  as  to an inferior court whose rules are prescribed by an appellate court.”   (David vs. Aetna Ins. Co., 9 Iowa, 45; Walker vs. Ducros, 18 La. Ann., 703; Pratt vs. Pratt, 157 Mass., 503; Wood vs. Wood, 1 Ohio Dec, 589; Rio Grande Irr.  Co. vs. Gilder sleeve, 174  U. S., 603.)

The appellant has not complied with these plain provisions providing for a uniform practice in this court.   These rules mean  something,  otherwise  they would not have  been promulgated.  They have been  promulgated  for several years and every practicing attorney should be familiar with them.

For these  reasons we are  of the opinion, and so hold, that this  appeal  should be  dismissed and  the  judgment affirmed, with costs against  the appellant.  So ordered.

Arellano,  C.  J.,  Torres, Johnson, and Moreland,  JJ., concur.