Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-48160 August 12, 1942
ROSARIO GUEVARA and PEDRO BUYSON, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO M. GUEVARA, respondents.
Pedro C. Quinto for petitioners.
Primicias, Abad Mencias & Castillo for respondent Guevara.
BOCOBO, J.:
Petitioners ask that the Court of Appeals be ordered to desist from further taking cognizance of the appeal taken by respondent Ernesto M. Guevara for lack of jurisdiction because said Ernesto M. Guevara failed to file the required appeal bond.
The judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dated February 6, 1940, in Civil Case No. 7618, ordered defendant therein Ernesto M. Guevara to deliver to plaintiffs therein, Rosario Guevara and Pedro Buyson, a certain portion of a piece of land. Both sides appealed. On July 31, 1940, respondent herein, Ernesto M. Guevara in his steps to perfect his appealed, offered to file an appeal bond, in these it terms:
Defendant-appellant Ernesto M. Guevara is ready and willing to file the corresponding appeal bond provided for in the New Rules of Court should it be decided that the same is applicable to the instant case which was commenced and decided by the trial court before said new rules went into effect.
The Court of First Instance approved the record on appeal but did not require or mention any appeal bond. Petitioners herein asked the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal for failure to file an appeal bond, but the court on October 24, 1940, denied the motion.
The question is whether the old Code of Civil Procedure or the new Rules of Court should be applied: in the former case, no appeal bond is necessary but in the latter case, such bond is required.
Rule 133 of the new Rules of Court provides:
Rule 133. Effectiveness. — The rule shall take effect on July 1, 1940. They shall govern all cases brought after they take effect, and also all further proceedings in cases then pending, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former procedure shall apply.
We are the opinion that under the circumstances of this case the application of the new Rules of Court would work an injustice because respondent Ernesto M. Guevara having offered to file an appeal bond at the trial court having approved the record on appeal without requiring a bond, it would be unfair to dismiss his appeal for lack of the very requisite which he was ready and willing to fulfill.
Wherefore, the petition for prohibition is hereby, denied with costs against the petitioners. So ordered.
Yulo, C.J., Moran, Ozaeta and Paras, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
