G.R. No. L-27492 - JULY 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-27492July 31, 1967 Salustiano O. Manalo vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-24930July 31, 1967 Shell Refining Company (Philippines) Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-24693July 31, 1967 Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Asso., Inc., et al. vs. City Mayor of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-23002July 31, 1967 Concepcion Felix vda. de Rodriguez vs. Geronimo Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-22604July 31, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Portugueza @ Ensoy, et al. G.R. No. L-22501July 31, 1967 Mariano Calleja vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-21588July 31, 1967 Atlas Development and Acceptance Corp. vs. Benjamin M. Gozon G.R. No. L-21275July 31, 1967 Zamboanga General Utilities, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. G.R. No. L-20649July 31, 1967 Chug Siu, et al. vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila G.R. No. L-20560July 31, 1967 Emiliano Acuña vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-19373July 29, 1967 Felix Asejo, et al. vs. Adriano Chua Joy, et al. G.R. No. L-27477July 28, 1967 Teodoro Juliano vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-27671, L-27684, L-27685 and L-27686July 27, 1967 Pablo de Guzman vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-26605July 27, 1967 Pablo D. Suarez, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-23118July 26, 1967 Policarpio Viray, et al. vs. City of Caloocan, et al. G.R. No. L-26764July 25, 1967 Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Rural Transit Shop Employees Asso., et al. G.R. No. L-26245July 25, 1967 Pablo Monteza vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-18060July 25, 1967 Remigio Joaquin vs. Isidra Cojuangco, et al. G.R. No. L-25515July 24, 1967 Manila Electric Company vs. Customs Arrastre Service, et al. A.C. No. 483July 21, 1967 Gil de los Santos vs. Mario Bolaños G.R. No. L-27121July 21, 1967 Jose Oscar M. Salazar, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-26959July 21, 1967 Oscar V. Co vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-26222July 21, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Hernando Pineda, et al. G.R. No. L-25662July 21, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24989July 21, 1967 Pedro Gravador vs. Eutiquio Mamigo, et al. G.R. No. L-24340, L-24341, L-24342, L-24343 and L-24344July 18, 1967 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Enrique Medina, et al. G.R. No. L-24322July 21, 1967 In re: Ormoc City Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Municipal Board of Ormoc City, et al. G.R. No. L-24321July 21, 1967 Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Civil Aeronautics Board, et al. G.R. No. L-23982July 21, 1967 Domingo Arao, et al. vs. Antonio R. Luspo, et al. G.R. No. L-23956July 21, 1967 Elpidio Javellana vs. Nicolas Lutero, et al. G.R. No. L-23538July 21, 1967 Consuelo Velayo vs. Rodolfo Velayo G.R. No. L-22356July 21, 1967 Republic of the Philippines vs. Pedro B. Patanao G.R. No. L-22174July 21, 1967 Esperanza P. de Harden vs. Fred M. Harden, et al. G.R. No. L-21495July 21, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Policarpio Halasan, et al. G.R. No. L-23229July 20, 1967 Andres P. Baring vs. Cesar M. Cabahug G.R. No. L-23176 and L-23177July 20, 1967 Pablo R. Tongco, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-19600July 19, 1967 Secretary of Justice, et al. vs. Enriquez Maglanoc, et al. G.R. No. L-21054July 18, 1967 In re: Miguel Chun Eng Go Miguel Chun Eng Go vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-25859July 13, 1967 Francisco Lopez vs. Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. L-23133July 13, 1967 Vicente S. del Rosario, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-24520July 11, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-26532July 10, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-26237July 10, 1967 North British and Mercantile Insurance, Co., Ltd. vs. Isthmian Lines, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-24704July 10, 1967 Auyong Hian vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-20086July 10, 1967 Philippine National Bank vs. Segundo Fernandez G.R. No. L-19535July 10, 1967 Heirs of Pelagio Zara, et al. vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. L-23258July 1, 1967 Roberto R. Monroy vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Salustiano O. Manalo vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Shell Refining Company (Philippines) Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Asso., Inc., et al. vs. City Mayor of Manila, et al. Concepcion Felix vda. de Rodriguez vs. Geronimo Rodriguez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Portugueza @ Ensoy, et al. Mariano Calleja vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Atlas Development and Acceptance Corp. vs. Benjamin M. Gozon Zamboanga General Utilities, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. Chug Siu, et al. vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila Emiliano Acuña vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. Felix Asejo, et al. vs. Adriano Chua Joy, et al. Teodoro Juliano vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Pablo de Guzman vs. Court of Appeals Pablo D. Suarez, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Policarpio Viray, et al. vs. City of Caloocan, et al. Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Rural Transit Shop Employees Asso., et al. Pablo Monteza vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Remigio Joaquin vs. Isidra Cojuangco, et al. Manila Electric Company vs. Customs Arrastre Service, et al. Gil de los Santos vs. Mario Bolaños Jose Oscar M. Salazar, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Oscar V. Co vs. Commission on Elections, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Hernando Pineda, et al. Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines Pedro Gravador vs. Eutiquio Mamigo, et al. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Enrique Medina, et al. In re: Ormoc City Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Municipal Board of Ormoc City, et al. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Civil Aeronautics Board, et al. Domingo Arao, et al. vs. Antonio R. Luspo, et al. Elpidio Javellana vs. Nicolas Lutero, et al. Consuelo Velayo vs. Rodolfo Velayo Republic of the Philippines vs. Pedro B. Patanao Esperanza P. de Harden vs. Fred M. Harden, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Policarpio Halasan, et al. Andres P. Baring vs. Cesar M. Cabahug Pablo R. Tongco, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Secretary of Justice, et al. vs. Enriquez Maglanoc, et al. In re: Miguel Chun Eng Go Miguel Chun Eng Go vs. Republic of the Philippines Francisco Lopez vs. Auditor General, et al. Vicente S. del Rosario, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. North British and Mercantile Insurance, Co., Ltd. vs. Isthmian Lines, Inc., et al. Auyong Hian vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Segundo Fernandez Heirs of Pelagio Zara, et al. vs. Director of Lands, et al. Roberto R. Monroy vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-27492 July 31, 1967
SALUSTIANO O. MANALO,petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and TEMISTOCLES MACAPANPAN,respondents.
Palacol and R. de los Reyes for petitioner.
Leonardo G. Ragasa for respondents.
REYES, J.B.L.,Actg. C.J.:
Petition forcertiorarito set aside the orders of the respondent Court of Appeals, in its case CA-G.R. No. 38300-R, dismissing the petitioner's appeals and denying the reinstatement of his appeal, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna in an election contest.
The petitioner Salustiano Manalo was proclaimed by the board of canvassers the elected mayor of Pakil, Laguna in the elections on 12 November 1963. His arrival for the position, respondent Temistocles Macapanpan, not satisfied with the result of the canvass, filed an election protest in the said Court of First Instance. After trial, the court rendered judgment on 5 September 1966 declaring the protestant, herein respondent Macapanpan, the duly elected mayor, with a plurality of nineteen (19) votes over the protestee.
Protestee Manalo appealed to the Court of Appeals, perfecting his appeal on 19 September 1966. On 1 March 1967, the appellate court issued the following resolution:
It appearing that counsel for the protestee-appellant failed to file printed brief within the reglementary period therefor nor to file a motion for extention within which to submit the same, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS the appeal of the protestee-appellant.
and, acting on appellant's motion to reconsider, the same Court, on 7 April 1967, issued the following resolution:
Upon consideration of the motion to reinstate the dismissed appeal as well as the opposition thereto, the court RESOLVED to DENY the motion.
The petitioner challenges the foregoing resolutions as illegal, unfair and issued without due process of law on the ground that none of his three (3) attorneys of record over received a notice from the clerk of the appellate court "that all evidence oral and documentary is already attached to the record," as provided for in Section 3, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, from which time of receipt is counted the period for him to file his brief; that his brief was already almost completed but had been waiting for the said notice; that petitioner received on 10 March 1967 the dismissal order of 1 March 1967; that notwithstanding that on the same day, 10 March 1967, he moved for reconsideration, attaching thereto his almost completed typewritten brief to show good faith, and asking a period of three (3) weeks from that day within which to file his brief, the Court of Appeals denied the reinstatement of his appeal.
On the other hand, respondent Macapanpan avers that on 11 January 1967 the respondent court issued the notice that "all evidence, oral and documentary is already attached to the record," giving the appellant a 15-day period to file his brief; that said notice was sent by registered mail on 17 January 1967, was received by the post office at Sta. Cruz, Laguna on 18 January 1967 and was delivered on 30 January 1967 to Atty. Magdaleno Palacol through his agent Macario Magcalas, although it was the wife of Magcalas who signed the registry return card and the registry book; that the registry notice was previously offered for delivery to Atty. Enrique Villanueva and to Atty. Rustico de los Reyes, Jr., also counsel of record of the appellant, but these lawyers refused to accept the notice; that although petitioner had asked for a 3-week period or until 31 March 1967 within which to file his brief, he has not filed any brief at all.
The three lawyers of the petitioners deny having authorized Mr. or Mrs. Magcalas to receive their mail for them; but Attys. Villanueva and De los Reyes have not disputed, in this Court, that they were previously offered delivery of the registry notices, but hey refused to accept it.
In denying reconsideration of its order of dismissal of the petitioner's appeal, the Court of Appeals evidently was not satisfied with the proofs submitted by said party. Its action in this regard is not subject to review, for we cannot interfere with its discretion, nor do we find adequate basis for a ruling that it was bound to believe any particular evidence.1äwphï1.ñët
Further, this Court must look with disfavor upon appellants in election cases who are the protestees, or the ones proclaimed or seated to contested offices, and who fail to exercise due vigilance in the prosecution of their appeals. As respondent Macapanpan pointed out, if the herein petitioner was serious in his appeal and was not merely trying to delay the final outcome of the case, why did he not file his printed brief on or before 25 March 1967, when he already knew on 19 March 1967 about the notice for him to file brief in 15 days? Or why had he not filed his brief on or before 31 March 1967, within the period he asked in his motion for reconsideration?
Petitioner offered no answers to these questions. Having given none, the issuance of the questioned order of dismissal and of the denial of the reinstatement of his appeal was not whimsical or arbitrary; therefore, not an abuse of discretion (Liwanag vs. Castillo, G. R. No. L-13517, 20 Oct. 1959). The orders complained of were grounded not so much on the misdelivery of the notice, but more upon petitioner's inaction or indifference to the prosecution of his appeal. His failure to file appellant's brief was a good ground for the dismissal of his appeal for, as stated inFelisilda vs. Achacoso, G. R. No. L-21228, 22 November 1963, "parties cannot expect the appellate courtmotu proprioto search from the record grounds to support their respective theories . . . . ."
Nor may this Court pass upon the petitioner's assignment of errors allegedly committed by the Court of First Instance, because this is not a petition forcertiorariagainst the trial court; neither is it an appeal bycertiorarifrom a decision of the Court of Appeals.
For the foregoing reasons, the questioned orders of 1 March 1967 and 7 April 1967 of the Court of Appeals are hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner Salustiano Manalo. So ordered.
Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., are on leave.