Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 118 views

    Purita Bersabal V Hon Judge Serafin

    Uploaded by

    Josh Barrieta
    This case involves Petitioner Purita Bersabal seeking to annul orders from Respondent Judge Serafin Salvador dismissing her appeal. Section 45 of the Philippine Judiciary Act states that Courts of First Instance shall decide appealed cases based on evidence and records transmitted, and parties may optionally submit memoranda. The Respondent Judge dismissed the appeal upon the Petitioner's failure to submit a memorandum on time. The Supreme Court held that submission of memoranda is optional, so the Court cannot dismiss an appeal solely for failure to submit a memorandum, and must decide the case based on the transmitted evidence and records. Dismissing the appeal in this case violated the Respondent's mandatory duty.

    Copyright:

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

    Purita Bersabal V Hon Judge Serafin

    Uploaded by

    Josh Barrieta
    118 views2 pages
    This case involves Petitioner Purita Bersabal seeking to annul orders from Respondent Judge Serafin Salvador dismissing her appeal. Section 45 of the Philippine Judiciary Act states that Courts of First Instance shall decide appealed cases based on evidence and records transmitted, and parties may optionally submit memoranda. The Respondent Judge dismissed the appeal upon the Petitioner's failure to submit a memorandum on time. The Supreme Court held that submission of memoranda is optional, so the Court cannot dismiss an appeal solely for failure to submit a memorandum, and must decide the case based on the transmitted evidence and records. Dismissing the appeal in this case violated the Respondent's mandatory duty.

    Original Description:

    Purita Bersabal v Hon Judge Serafin

    Original Title

    Purita Bersabal v Hon Judge Serafin

    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 involves Petitioner Purita Bersabal seeking to annul orders from Respondent Judge Serafin Salvador dismissing her appeal. Section 45 of the Philippine Judiciary Act states that Courts of First Instance shall decide appealed cases based on evidence and records transmitted, and parties may optionally submit memoranda. The Respondent Judge dismissed the appeal upon the Petitioner's failure to submit a memorandum on time. The Supreme Court held that submission of memoranda is optional, so the Court cannot dismiss an appeal solely for failure to submit a memorandum, and must decide the case based on the transmitted evidence and records. Dismissing the appeal in this case violated the Respondent's mandatory duty.

    Copyright:

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

    Purita Bersabal V Hon Judge Serafin

    Uploaded by

    Josh Barrieta
    This case involves Petitioner Purita Bersabal seeking to annul orders from Respondent Judge Serafin Salvador dismissing her appeal. Section 45 of the Philippine Judiciary Act states that Courts of First Instance shall decide appealed cases based on evidence and records transmitted, and parties may optionally submit memoranda. The Respondent Judge dismissed the appeal upon the Petitioner's failure to submit a memorandum on time. The Supreme Court held that submission of memoranda is optional, so the Court cannot dismiss an appeal solely for failure to submit a memorandum, and must decide the case based on the transmitted evidence and records. Dismissing the appeal in this case violated the Respondent's mandatory duty.

    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

    PURITA BERSABAL v HON.

    JUDGE SERAFIN SALVADOR


    G.R. No. L-35910
    July 21, 1978

    FACTS:
    Petitioner Purita Bersabal seeks to annul the orders of respondent Judge and to compel said
    respondent Judge to decide petitioner’s perfected appeal on the basis of the evidence and records
    of the case submitted by the City Court of Caloocan City plus the memorandum already submitted
    by the petitioner and respondents. The second paragraph of Section 45 of R.A. No. 296, otherwise
    known as the Philippine Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by R.A. No. 6031 provides, in part,
    as follows:

    Courts of First Instance shall decide such appealed cases on the basis of the evidence and
    records transmitted from the city or municipal courts: Provided, That the parties may
    submit memoranda and/or brief with oral argument if so requested … . (Emphasis supplied).
    A decision was rendered by said Court which decision was appealed by the petitioner to the
    respondent Court. The respondent Judge dismissed petition on August 4, 1971 upon failure of
    defendant–appellant to prosecute her appeal, with costs against her. Petitioner filed her
    memorandum. The respondent Court denied the motion for reconsideration on October 30, 1971.
    Petitioner filed a motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration which was likewise
    denied by the respondent court on March 15, 1972.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not, in the light of the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 45 of Republic
    Act No. 296, as amended by R.A. No. 6031, the mere failure of an appellant to submit on time the
    memorandum mentioned in the same paragraph would empower the Court of First Instance to
    dismiss the appeal on the ground of failure to Prosecute.

    HELD:
    NO. The challenged orders of Respondent Judge dated August 4, 1971, October 30, 1971, and
    March 15, 1972 are set aside as null and void.

    RATIO:
    The above cited provision is clear and leaves no room for doubt. It cannot be interpreted otherwise
    than that the submission of memoranda is optional on the part of the parties. Being optional on
    the part of the parties, the latter may so choose to waive submission of the memoranda. And as
    a logical concomitant of the choice given to the Parties, the Court cannot dismiss the appeal of
    the party waiving the submission of said memorandum the appellant so chooses not to submit
    the memorandum, the Court of First Instance is left with no alternative but to decide the case on
    the basis of the evidence and records transmitted from the city or municipal courts. In other words,
    the Court is not empowered by law to dismiss the appeal on the mere failure of an appellant to
    submit his memorandum, but rather it is the Court’s mandatory duty to decide the case on the
    basis of the available evidence and records transmitted to it.
    As a general rule, the word “may” when used in a statute is permissive only and operates to
    confer discretion; while the word “shall” is imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be
    enforced (Dizon vs. Encarnacion, L-18615, Dec. 24, 1963, 9 SCRA 714, 716-717). The implication
    is that the Court is left with no choice but to decide the appealed case either on the basis of the
    evidence and records transmitted to it, or on the basis of the latter plus memoranda and/or brief
    with oral argument duly submitted and/or made on request.

    You might also like