Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Alday V Camillon

    Uploaded by

    Melgen
    This case concerns whether a writ of execution should be issued to enforce a lower court decision against petitioners, who filed a notice of appeal and cash appeal bond but did not submit a record on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while the lower court did not abuse its discretion at the time, new rules stating that no record on appeal is needed are now in effect and can be applied retroactively. Therefore, the writ of execution is set aside and petitioners' appeal must be given due course even without a record on appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Alday V Camillon

    Uploaded by

    Melgen
    80 views2 pages
    This case concerns whether a writ of execution should be issued to enforce a lower court decision against petitioners, who filed a notice of appeal and cash appeal bond but did not submit a record on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while the lower court did not abuse its discretion at the time, new rules stating that no record on appeal is needed are now in effect and can be applied retroactively. Therefore, the writ of execution is set aside and petitioners' appeal must be given due course even without a record on appeal.

    Original Description:

    thanks

    Original Title

    Alday v Camillon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerns whether a writ of execution should be issued to enforce a lower court decision against petitioners, who filed a notice of appeal and cash appeal bond but did not submit a record on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while the lower court did not abuse its discretion at the time, new rules stating that no record on appeal is needed are now in effect and can be applied retroactively. Therefore, the writ of execution is set aside and petitioners' appeal must be given due course even without a record on appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views2 pages

    Alday V Camillon

    Uploaded by

    Melgen
    This case concerns whether a writ of execution should be issued to enforce a lower court decision against petitioners, who filed a notice of appeal and cash appeal bond but did not submit a record on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while the lower court did not abuse its discretion at the time, new rules stating that no record on appeal is needed are now in effect and can be applied retroactively. Therefore, the writ of execution is set aside and petitioners' appeal must be given due course even without a record on appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    1

    Republic of the Philippines


    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    FIRST DIVISION
    G.R. No. L-60316 January 31, 1983
    VIOLETA ALDAY and ERNESTO Yu, petitioners,
    vs.
    HONORABLE SERAFIN E. CAMILON, as Judge temporarily
    presiding over Branch XXV of the Court of First Instance of Rizal
    (Pasig), SHERIFF OF PASIG, respondents.
    Moises B. Boquia for petitioners.
    Acebes, Del Carmen, Cecilio, Cinco & Ferrer Law Office for respondent
    Aboitiz.
    RESOLUTION

    MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
    The issue for resolution is whether or not respondent Judge gravely
    abused his discretion in issuing a Writ of Execution to enforce the
    Decision in Civil Case No. 31725 of his Court for a sum of money
    entitled Aboitiz & Co Inc. v Violets Alday and Ernesto Yu, notwithstanding
    the fact that petitioners, as defendants aid the losing party below, had
    timely filed a Notice of Appeal and posted a cash appeal bond, but did
    not submit any Record on Appeal.

    There is no question that the Decision of the lower Court adverse to


    petitioners was rendered on August 13, 1981. Copy thereof was received
    by them on September 1, 1981. Within time, petitioners filed on
    September 4, 1981 a Notice of Appeal and a cash appeal bond, but
    without a Record on Appeal. On March 25, 1982, respondent Judge
    issued the questioned Order granting execution since petitioners had not
    perfected an appeal within the reglementary period for failure on their
    part to file a Record on Appeal within the prescribed period,
    Petitioners justify the non-filing of the Record on Appeal by invoking
    section 39 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas Pambansa
    Blg. 129) providing that "no record on appeal shall, be required to take an
    appeal." They claim that the Act was approved on August 14, 1981 and
    Section 48 thereof specifically provides that it was to take effect
    immediately.
    Petitioners overlook, however, Section 44 of BP Blg. 129 specifically
    providing that its provisions were to be immediately carried out in
    accordance with an Executive Order to be issued by the President and
    that the old Courts would continue to function until the completion of the
    reorganization as declared by the President. Moreover, it will be recalled
    that on September 3, 1981, a Petition questioning the constitutionality of
    that law was instituted before this Court (De la Llana vs. Alba, G.R. No.
    L-57883). The constitutionality of that law was upheld in our Decision of
    March 12, 1982 (112 SCRA 294). Consequently, prior to that date, and
    before the issuance of Executive Order No. 864, dated January 17, 1983,
    declaring the completion of the reorganization of the Judiciary, BP Big.
    129 could not be said to have been in force and effect. It was
    prematurely for petitioners to have invoked that law to justify their stand
    in not filing a Record on Appeal, and respondent Judge cannot be faulted
    with grave abuse of discretion for having authorized the issuance of the
    Writ of Execution since, for lack of compliance with the procedure for

    taking an appeal under the former Rules of Court, the lower Court
    Decision would have become final.
    Nonetheless, in Executive Order No. 864, dated January 17, 1983, the
    President of the Philippines had declared that the former Courts were
    deemed automatically abolished as of 12:00 o'clock midnight of January
    17, 1983. The reorganization having been declared to have been
    completed, BP Blg. 129 is now in full force and effect. A Record on
    Appeal is no longer necessary for taking an appeal. The same proviso
    appears in Section 18 of the Interim Rules aid Guidelines issued by this
    Court on January 11, 1983. Being procedural in nature, those provisions
    may be applied retroactively for the benefit of petitioners, as appellant.
    Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be
    construed as applicable to action's pending and
    undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural
    laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent
    (People vs. Sumilang, 77 Phil. 764 [1946]).

    ACCORDINGLY, the Order of respondent Judge (now an Associate


    Justice of the Intermediate Appellate Court) granting the issuance of the
    Writ of Execution is hereby set aside and the branch of the Regional Trial
    Court to whom the case below has been assigned is hereby directed to
    give due course to petitioners' appeal even without a Record on Appeal.
    The temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued by this Tribunal
    enjoining the enforcement of the Writ of Execution issued by the lower
    Court is hereby made permanent.
    No costs.
    SO ORDERED.
    Teehankee (Chairman), Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
    Plana, J., is on leave.

    You might also like