10/9/2016

G.R.No.L8883

TodayisSunday,October09,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L8883July14,1959
ALFREDOM.VELAYO,ETC.,plaintiff,
vs.
SHELLCOMPANYOFTHEPHILIPPINESISLANDS,LTD.,defendantappellee.
ALFONSOZ.SYCIP,ET.AL.,intervenorsappellants.
Sycip,Quisumbing,SalazarandAssociatesforappellants.
Ozaeta,LichaucoandPicazoforappellee.
BAUTISTAANGELO,J.:
OnDecember17,1948,AlfredoM.VelayoasassigneesoftheinsolventCommercialAirlines,Inc.,institutedan
actionagainstShellCompanyofthePhilippineIslands,Ltd.,intheCourtofFirstInstanceofManilaforinjunction
anddamages(CivilCaseNo.6966).OnOctober26,1951,acomplaintininterventionwasfiledbyAlfonsoSycip,
PaulSycip,andYekTradingCorporation,andonNovember14,1951,byMabasa&Company.
Aftertrialwhereinplaintiffpresentedevidenceinhisbehalf,butnoneinbehalfofintervenors,thecourtrendered
decisiondismissingplaintiff'scomplaintaswellasthosefiledbytheintervenors.OnMarch31,1954,counselfor
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal in behalf only of plaintiff even if they also
representtheintervenors,whichinduetimewereapproved,theCourtinstructingitsclerktoforwardtherecord
onappealtotheSupremeCourttogetherwithalltheevidencepresentedinthecase.Thisinstructionwasactually
compliedwith.
OnAugust31,1954,theDeputyClerkoftheSupremeCourtnotifiedcounselofplaintiffthattherecordaswellas
the evidence have already been received and that they should file their brief within 45 days from receipt of the
notice.OnNovember2,1954,counselfiledtheirbriefforappellants.OnNovember6,1954,or7monthsafterthe
judgmenthadbecomefinalasagainsttheintervenors,and4daysaftercounselforappellantshadsubmittedthe
latter'sbrief,counselforintervenorsfiledwiththeSupremeCourtapetitionforcorrectionoftherecordonappeal
in order to enable them to insert therein the names of the intervenors as appellants, the petition being based,
amongothers,onthegroundthattheomissionofthenamesoftheintervenorsinsaidrecordonappealwasdue
to the mistake of the typist who prepared it while the attorney in charge was on vacation. The petition was
vigorously opposed by counsel for defendant, contending that the same would serve no purpose, whatsoever
consideringthattheintervenorshadnotpresentedanyevidenceinsupportoftheirclaim,asidefromthefactthat
theallegedabsenceoftheattorneyoftheintervenorscannotconstituteajustificationfortheallegedomissionof
theintervenorsasappellants.OnNovember12,1954,theCourtdeniedthepetition.Counselintervenorsmoved
forareconsiderationoftheorder,butthesamewasdenied.
OnNovember19,1954,counselforintervenorsfiledwiththelowercourtapetitionforreliefunderRule38ofthe
RulesofCourt,whereinhereiteratedthesamegroundstheyallegedinthepetitionforcorrectionfiledbythemin
the Supreme Court, which petition was denied on November 27, 1954, for having been filed outside the
reglementaryperiodfixedinsaidRule38.Counselfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichwasagaindenied,the
Courtstatingthat"nojudgmentororderhasbeenrendered,noranyotherproceedingtakenbythisCourtonthe
rightoftheintervenorstoappeal."
On December 20, 1954, counsel filed once more a motion to amend the record on appeal based on grounds
identicalwiththoseallegedinthepetitionforcorrectionfiledbeforetheSupremeCourt.OnDecember27,1954,
the lower court denied the motion. On January 6, 1955, counsel filed a petition for relief from this last order
enteredonDecember27,1954,towhichcounselfordefendantfiledanopposition.OnFebruary5,1955,hearing
washadonboththepetitionforreliefandtheopposition,andonFebruary9,1955,thepetitionwasdeniedonthe
ground that the case is already before the Supreme Court on appeal. It is from this order that the counsel for
intervenorshastakentheappealnowbeforeus.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1959/jul1959/gr_l8883_1959.html

1/2

10/9/2016

G.R.No.L8883

Theinstantappealhasnomerit.
To begin with, the only remedy which appellants now seek in this appeal is the inclusion of the intervenors as
appellantsintheappealfromthedecisionrenderedinthemaincase,butthisremedyhasalreadybeendenied
twicebythisCourt,first,initsresolutionofNovember12,1954denyingtheirpetitionforcorrectionoftherecord
onappeal,and,second,indenyingtheirmotionforreconsiderationofsaidresolution.Itshouldbenotedthatthe
groundsrelieduponinthisappealarethesamegroundsallegedinsaidpetitionforcorrection.
In the second place, the intervenors have no right or reason to appeal from the decision in the main case, it
appearingthattheydidnotintroduceanyevidenceduringthetrialinsupportoftheircomplaint,whichshowsthat
theirappealwouldbemerelyproforma.And,inanyevent,theymadetheattempttoamendtherecordonappeal
seven(7)monthsafterthedecisionhadbecomefinalagainstthem.
Inthethirdplace,theintervenorshavenorightorreasontofileapetitionforreliefunderRule38oftheRulesof
CourtfromtheorderofthelowercourtissuedonDecember27,1954,forthereasonthatthesamewasentered
upon a motion filed by them. Indeed they cannot reasonably assert that the order was entered against them
through fraud, accident, mistake, or negligence. The fraud mentioned in Rule 38 is the fraud committed by the
adversepartyandcertainlythesamecannotbeattributedtotheCourt.
Finally,itappearsthatthemaincasehasalreadybeendecidedbythisCourtonthemeritsonOctober31,1956,
reversingthedecisionofthelowercourtandawardingdamagestoplaintiff,whichapparentlyistheverypurpose
which the intervenors seek to accomplish in joining the appeal as coappellants. This appeal, therefore, has
alreadybecomemoot.
Wherefore,theorderappealedfromisaffirmed,withcostsagainstappellants.
Paras,C.J.,Bengzon,Padilla,Montemayor,Labrador,Concepcion,EndenciaandBarrera,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1959/jul1959/gr_l8883_1959.html

2/2