[46] Spouses Gutierrez v. Cabrera (SUNTAY) 9.
CA: annulled the decision of the MTC and RTC
February 28, 2005 | Quisimbing | Record on Appeal
PETITIONER: SPS. ERNESTO GUTIERREZ and FELICISIMA B.
GUTIERREZ
RESPONDENTS: HEIRS OF PASCUAL B. CABRERA
SUMMARY:
Sps. Gutierrez (Petitioners) are caught in a dispute with Cabrera (Respondent)
involving a parcel of land. Said property was validly sold to petitioners but was
leased to respondent. Petitioner thus filed ejectment case against respondent. The
MTC and RTC both ruled for petitioners and ordered respondent to vacate the
property. However, the CA reversed hence this appeal. Petitioners contend that
the appeal to the CA filed by respondent should have been dismissed as it
wrongfully impleaded the lower court judge which is proscribed by the law of
procedure.
The Court ruled that such defect does not warrant the dismissal of the appeal, but
only the dismissal of the petition. Sound policy dictates that if the appeal were to
be dismissed, it should be done based on the merits and not on a mere technicality.
Which is what the Court did here.
DOCTRINE: Impleading the lower court judge in an appeal to the CA does not
call for the dismissal of the appeal but only the dismissal of the petition. The case
should still be heard on the merits rather than be dismissed on mere technicality.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Gutierrez purchased a parcel of land from her mother Primitiva.
2. Despite the sale being completed and the title over subject property awarded
to petitioner, Primitiva leased the parcel of land to respondent Cabrera
a. Cabrera therefore took possession of the land and built a fishpond
thereon
3. Petitioners asked their son to visit said property, but he was confronted by
respondent who hacked him with a bolo.
4. Petitioners thus filed complaint for ejectment against respondent to the MTC
a. Respondent defended that the petition should be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction
5. MTC: Ruled for petitioner and ordered respondent to vacate the property
6. RTC: Affirmed the MTC ruling in toto
7. Petitioner thus filed for a writ of execution which was granted;
a. The Sheriff demolished respondent’s house
b. Also levied the parcel of land and sold the same at public auction
8. On appeal to the CA, respondent argued that the MTC lacked jurisdiction to
hear the case since it involved an agricultural dispute
a. Petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it
impleaded the lower court judge which is contrary to Section 2, Rule
42 of the Rules of Court;
a. Petitioners filed an MR but it was denied hence the present petition
10. Petitioners contend that following Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the appeal to the CA should have been dismissed for improperly
impleading the lower Court Judge
ISSUE:
1. WoN the appeal to the CA impleading the lower court Judge is fatal to the
complaint. – NO.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision, dated September 28, 2000,
and the Resolution, dated June 14, 2002, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
46266 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decisions dated August 11,
1997 and November 17, 1997 of the Municipal Trial Court in Special Civil Action No.
53 and of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 686-M-97, respectively, are
reinstated. The Writ of Execution dated March 16, 1998, by the RTC is also declared
valid. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
RATIO:
The correct procedure is not to implead the lower court or agency which
rendered the assailed decision. However, impleading a lower court judge does not
automatically mean the dismissal of the appeal but merely authorizes the
dismissal of the petition.
Formal defects in petitions are not uncommon. The Court has encountered
previous petitions for review that erroneously impleaded the Court of Appeals. In
those cases, the Court merely called the petitioners' attention to the defects and
proceeded to resolve the case on their merits. The Court finds no reason why it should
not afford the same liberal treatment in this case. While the Court has unquestionably
the discretion to dismiss the appeal for being defective, sound policy dictates that it is
far better to dispose of cases on the merits, rather than on technicality as the latter
approach may result in injustice. This is in accordance with Rule 1, Section 6 which
encourages a reading of the procedural requirements in a manner that will help secure
and not defeat justice.