Civil Code Article 10: In
case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, it is presumed
that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
Spouses
Bello Petitioners
Vs.
CA,
Hon. Francisco Llamas, Judge of Pasay City Court and Republic of the
Philippines Respondents
Facts: On
August 25, 1970, spouses Bello were charged with estafa for allegedly having
misappropriated a lady’s ring with a value of P1, 000.00 received from them
from Atty. Prudencio De Guzman for sale on commission basis. After trial, they
were convicted and sentenced. They then filed an appeal to the Court of First
Instance and after that to the respondent city court which was also dismissed
and ordered for execution of judgment “for having been erroneously addressed to
this court”. Petitioner spouses then filed for prohibition and mandamus against
the People and respondent city court to elevate their appeal to the Court of
Appeals which was again dismissed after finding that the city court’s judgment
was directly appealable to it. Still, the couple moved for reconsideration and
stressing the merits of their appeal and of their defense but was again denied
“for lack of sufficient merit”.
Issue: Whether
or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case due to wrong procedure.
Whether
or not the execution of judgment will be issued a mandamus
Ruling: Decision
of CA to dismiss petition is set aside. Mandamus is issued for the execution of
its judgment of conviction. And, said city court is commanded to elevate
petitioner’s appeal from its judgment to the Court of Appeals for the
disposition on the merits.
The
Court of Appeals should have not dismissed the appeal but should have certified
the case to the proper court. It is of the essence of judicial duty to construe
statutes so as to avoid such deplorable result of injustice and absurdity and
that a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead
to absurd results.
No comments:
Post a Comment