EMETERIO M. MOZAR, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ERNESTO MADAMBA, (OR THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH XVII), CITY SHERIFF OF M…

In its Motion for Reconsideration dated January 30, 1989, counsel
for Spouses Risma and Mozar
stated the following:

“Evidently, this Honorable Court decided on the merits of the
case based solely on the Appellant’s Brief of Guballa.  The Spouses Risma
respectfully submit that this is grave error and in violation of their rights
to due process since they have all
along been arguing before this Court not on the correctness of the decision of
the trial court but on the propriety of the dismissal of Guballa’s appeal by the respondent
appellate court.

It was premature for
this Court to decide the case on the
merits without according private respondents the opportunity to answer the
alleged errors committed by the trial court. 
x x
x“

(p.
22, Motion for Reconsideration;
p. 276, Rollo)

There is merit in the above contention for actually no discussion
on the merits have been made by the Spouses Risma and
Mozar.  We
believe that they should have been given an opportunity to file their appellee’s brief in the Court of Appeals if only to
emphasize the necessity of due process.

Be it noted that while it is true that instead of remanding the
case to the appellate court, the Supreme Court can already decide on the merits
from the facts that have been presented to it, still a re-study of this issue
yields the conclusion that the facts
already before Us are not yet complete, considering that the decision of the
trial court and the appellant’s brief have not yet been presented to this
Court.  This is in addition to the fact
that no Appellee’s Brief has as yet been presented
by the appellee to
the Court of Appeals.  Be it noted further that the records of
the Court of Appeals on these two cases
have not as yet been elevated to the Supreme Court.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the
Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED in the sense that these cases are hereby
remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, that is, to enable
the Spouses Risma
and Mozar to file their appellee’s
brief in the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., (Chairman), on leave.