ASTA MOSKOWSKY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO C. DORIA, EDGARDO L. ALCARAZ, AND EVANGELINE E. DORIA, Respondents.
FACTS: Petitioner herein Asta Moskowsky, a German national, is seeking to recover her investments in an alleged joint venture with private respondents Antonio C. Doria, Edgardo L. Alcaraz, and Evangeline E. Doria. On August 10, 1984, petitioner filed a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages. On November 16, 1989, after a protracted trial on the merits, the trial rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. From that decision, private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising both factual and legal issues. The Court of Appeals, however, rendered a decision dated May 5, 1995 dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of plaintiff-appellee's (petitioner's) alleged non-payment of docket fees with the additional finding that petitioner can no longer pay the docket fees prescription of the action has already set in
ISSUE: WON the CA is Correct
HELD: utmost circumspection
should be exercised by appellate courts in dismissing appeals on grounds which
can be readily verified from the records of the case. Litigation should, as
much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicality. Dismissal
of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon, and the rules of
procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they
are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice and thereby
defeat their very aims. As has been the constant ruling of this Court, every
party litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and
just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.
No comments:
Post a Comment