Scribd
Upload
60 views2 pages

Velasco Vs CA Part 1

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition for certiorari filed by Petitioners Pepito Velasco, et al. against the Court of Appeals and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The Court of Appeals had ruled that the GSIS's motion for a new trial was not pro forma, meaning the period to appeal was suspended. The Supreme Court decided to broaden the scope of its inquiry beyond whether the motion for new trial was pro forma, noting there was enough basis to resolve the underlying controversy between the parties. It treated the case as an appeal under Republic Act 5440 to resolve all factual and legal issues without needing to remand the case.

Uploaded by

Hohenheim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views2 pages

Velasco Vs CA Part 1

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition for certiorari filed by Petitioners Pepito Velasco, et al. against the Court of Appeals and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The Court of Appeals had ruled that the GSIS's motion for a new trial was not pro forma, meaning the period to appeal was suspended. The Supreme Court decided to broaden the scope of its inquiry beyond whether the motion for new trial was pro forma, noting there was enough basis to resolve the underlying controversy between the parties. It treated the case as an appeal under Republic Act 5440 to resolve all factual and legal issues without needing to remand the case.

Uploaded by

Hohenheim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-47544 January 28, 1980


PEPITO VELASCO, AMABLE LUMANLAN, RAMON GALANG, FELIPE LUMBANG and
APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondents.
Ocampo, Velasco, Sicat & Associate for petitioners.
Manuel M. Lazaro for respondent GSIS.
BARREDO, J.:
Petition for certiorari, erroneously citing Section I of Rule 65, for the review of the decision of
the Special Division of Five of the Court of Appeals dated December 6, 1977 in CA .G.R. No.
06152 declaring, by a vote of four to one, null and void the order of the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga in Civil Case No. 4260 dated December 2, 1976, which had declared the judgment of
said court in said case final and executory, directing in consequence, said trial court to approve
the record on appeal of herein respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS for
short) and to give due course to its appeal, setting aside correspondingly the restraining order it
had previously issued in the same case, the Court of Appeals holding that, contrary to the ruling
of the trial court, the motion for new trial of the GSIS admittedly filed on time is not pro-forma
and, therefore, the period to appeal the trial court's decision in question had been suspended by
said motion, hence, said decision was still appealable.ch
From the foregoing brief statement of the nature of the instant case, it would appear that Our sole
function in this proceeding should be to resolve the single issue of whether or not the Court of
Appeals erred in ruling that the motion for new trial of the GSIS in question should indeed be
deemed pro-forma. But going over the extended pleadings of both parties, the Court is
immediately impressed that substantial justice may not be timely achieved, if We should decide
this case upon such a technical ground alone. We have carefully read all the allegations and
arguments of the parties, very ably and comprehensively expounded by evidently knowledgeable
and unusually competent counsel, and We feel We can better serve the interests of justice by
broadening the scope of Our inquiry, for as the record before Us stands, We see that there is
enough basis for Us to end the basic controversy between the parties here and now, dispensing,
however, with procedural steps which would not anyway affect substantially the merits of their
respective claims.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
As a matter of fact, after our first study of this case, We already announced Our intention in this
direction at the hearing held on February 21, 1979, where Attys. Celestino T. Ocampo, Vicente
Sicat and Victoriano David appeared and argued for the petitioners and Justice Manuel Lazaro
and Atty. Antonio F. Navarrete, for the GSIS. We reiterated said intention in Our resolution of
said date by requiring the parties "to INFORM the Court ... whether or not there are any issues of
fact that the purported appeal of private respondent would involve and whether or not petitioners
controvert the same, with the end in view of enabling this Court to take the necessary steps to
convert this proceeding into an appeal ... (under) Republic Act 5440". To be sure, in its
compliance dated April 10, 1979 with said resolution, GSIS does enumerate certain allegedly
"pivotal factual issues" its appeal "would involve." However, as will be explained anon even the
"pivotal factual issues" referred to may be justly resolved here without the need of returning this
case to the trial court. The exact position of the parties in respect to said issues and the
allegations of fact in their pleadings here and in the court below as well as the undisputed
evidence related thereto are so clearly stated and comprehensively discussed by the parties in
their said pleadings that to conduct further proceedings or to await any other briefs from them
would be superfluous and a waste of time and effort. Accordingly, We now deem this case as
submitted for Our decision as a duly made appeal under Republic Act
5440.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
According to GSIS:
A Detailed Statement of Facts and of the Case

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy