8/6/2019 Bello v. CA (Classic Version)

1/2

Bello v. Court of Appeals

Teehankee, J.:

FACTS:y Petitioners were charged before the City Court ofPasay and was convicted for estafa for

allegedly having misappropriated a ladys ring with a value of P1000.00 received by

them from Atty. Prudencio de Guzman for sale on commission basis.

y Petitioners filed their notice of appeal of the adverse judgment to the Court of FirstInstance ofPasay City.

y Prosecution then filed a petition to dismiss the appeal stating that the appeal shouldhave been taken directly to the Court of Appeals as provided by section 87 of the

Judiciary Act, RA 296, as amended.

y Opposing the motion, the petitioners invoked Rule 50, section 3 of the Rules of Courtdirecting that the Court of Appeals (CA) in cases erroneously brought to it shall not

dismiss the appeal, but shall certify the case to the proper court, with a specific and

clear statement of the grounds therefor.

y The CFI dismissed the case even though it did find that the appeal should have beentaken directly to the CA.

y Petitioners then filed a motion to elevate appeal to Court of Appeals with the city courtbut was as well denied for having been erroneously addressed to the said Court.

y Petitioners filed their petition for prohibition and mandamus against the People andrespondent city court to prohibit the execution of judgment and to compel respondent

city court to elevate their appeal to the Court of Appeals.

y Petition was again denied by CA and held that since petitioners did not implead the CFIas principal party respondent it could not grant any relief at all even on the assumption

that petitioners can be said to deserve some equities.

y A motion for reconsideration was also denied for lack of sufficient merit.y Hence, the instant petition.

Issue:

W/N the case should be elevated to Respondent Court despite finality of judicial decision

Held:

y The CFI acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner-accusseds appealwhich was erroneously brought to it

8/6/2019 Bello v. CA (Classic Version)

2/2

y CA also acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their petition instead ofsetting aside the challenge the CFI peremptorily dismissing the appeal

y The CAs act of dismissing the petition and denying the relief sought because ofnonimpleader of the CFI as a nominal party was tantamount to sacrificing substance to

form and to subordinating substantial justice to a mere matter of procedural technicality.y STATCON: CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES SHOULD BE CAUTIONED AGAINST

NARROWLY INTERPRETING A STATUTE AS TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE

LEGISLATORS

o CONSTRUE STATUTE TO AVOID DEPLORABLE RESULT OF INJUSTICE/ABSURDITY

o LITERAL INTERPRETATION IS TO BE REJECTED IF ITWOULD BE UNJUSTORWILL LEAD TO ABSURB RESULT.

Accordingly, the decision of the CA dismissing the petition is hereby SET ASIDE and in lieu

thereof, judgment is hereby rendered granting the petition for prohibition against resp. city

court which is hereby enjoined from executing its judgment of conviction and commanding said

city court to elevate petitioners appeal from its judgment to CA for the latters disposition on

the merits. NO COST.