Matute vs. Macadaeg

A litigant granted authority to litigate as a pauper under Rule 3, section 22, may appeal without filing an appeal bond, and that right persists until the court rules otherwise; hence, when the court later denies a motion to appeal as a pauper, the appeal bond filed within the period counted from receipt of the denial order—excluding time spent on a motion for reconsideration—is timely. The denial of a motion to appeal as a pauper is not an abuse of discretion where the record contains enough evidence to warrant it.

Petitioners Rosario, Trinidad, Carlos, Matias, and Ramon Matute were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 14208 of the Court of First Instance of Manila against Amadeo Matute, an action for partition and delivery of their share in conjugal property with a petition for receivership. The governing framework is Rule 3, section 22, of the Rules of Court, which authorizes a litigant to litigate as a pauper and exempts such litigant from payment of legal fees and from filing an appeal bond, printed record, and printed brief. The petitioners had been granted authority to litigate as paupers in the principal case.

Petitioners Rosario, Trinidad, Carlos, Matias, and Ramon Matute were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 14208 in the Court of First Instance of Manila. They sued Amadeo Matute for partition and delivery of their share in conjugal property, with a petition for receivership. Simultaneously with the complaint, they filed a petition to litigate as paupers under Rule 3, section 22, of the Rules of Court. The court, then presided over by respondent judge, granted the petition.

Instead of answering, Amadeo Matute filed a motion to dismiss. After proper hearing, the court entered an order on October 31, 1951 dismissing the complaint on the ground of res adjudicata. Petitioners received a copy of the order on November 3, 1951.

On December 1, 1951, petitioners filed their notice of appeal, record on appeal, and a motion to appeal as paupers in lieu of the appeal bond. On December 8, 1951, Amadeo filed a written opposition to the motion, alleging that petitioners were not really paupers who could be allowed to litigate as such under the Rules of Court. The court set the motion for hearing, but petitioners failed to appear. On January 4, 1952, the court entered an order denying the motion. Petitioners received a copy on January 18, 1952.

On January 24, 1952, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion was heard on January 26, and on April 30, 1952, the court denied it. Petitioners received a copy of the denial on May 9, 1952. On the same date, they filed an appeal bond of P60, coupled with a manifestation that the filing of the bond should not be deemed a waiver of their petition to prosecute their appeal as paupers in the event the question was raised before the Supreme Court.

On May 14, 1952, Amadeo filed a motion to declare the judgment on the merits final and executory. Notwithstanding petitioners' opposition, the motion was granted on May 17, 1952. Petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus. The trial court had denied the pauper appeal motion after petitioners failed to appear at the hearing, and the Supreme Court found there was enough evidence to warrant that denial.

• Pauper Appeal: Petitioners filed a motion to appeal as paupers in lieu of an appeal bond, invoking the authority previously granted under Rule 3, section 22.
• Reservation of Pauper Claim: Petitioners filed a P60 appeal bond with a manifestation that its filing should not be deemed a waiver of their petition to prosecute their appeal as paupers if the question were raised before the Supreme Court.

• Pauper Status: Respondent Amadeo Matute opposed the motion to appeal as paupers, alleging that petitioners were not really paupers who could be allowed to litigate as such under the Rules of Court.
• Finality of Judgment: Respondent moved to declare the judgment on the merits final and executory, which the court granted on May 17, 1952.

• Timeliness of Appeal: Whether petitioners can still appeal from the decision in Civil Case No. 14208 considering that they filed the appeal bond beyond the thirty-day period from the date copy of the decision was served on them.
• Denial of Pauper Appeal: Whether respondent judge abused his discretion in denying petitioners' motion to appeal as paupers.

• Timeliness of Appeal: Yes. The appeal bond was filed on time because petitioners were entitled to appeal as paupers under the original authority until the court ruled otherwise, and that ruling came only on January 4, 1952; the bond was filed six days from receipt of the denial order, excluding the period for reconsideration.
• Denial of Pauper Appeal: No. The respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion; there was enough evidence to warrant his action.

• Timeliness of Appeal: Rule 3, section 22, provides that authority to litigate as pauper includes exemption from payment of legal fees and from filing appeal bond, printed record, and printed brief. Because the court had granted petitioners' petition to litigate as paupers, they were entitled to appeal without filing an appeal bond, and this right could only be divested when the court ruled otherwise. The court's denial of their motion to appeal as paupers was entered on January 4, 1952; petitioners received it on January 18, 1952. They filed a motion for reconsideration on January 24, 1952, which was denied on April 30, 1952, with copy received on May 9, 1952. On that same date, they filed the P60 appeal bond with a reservation. Although the bond was not filed within thirty days from receipt of the decision on October 31, 1951, it was filed only six days from receipt of the order denying the motion to appeal as paupers, excluding the period spent considering the motion for reconsideration. The bond was therefore timely.
• Denial of Pauper Appeal: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to appeal as paupers. The record contained enough evidence to warrant the respondent judge's action.

• Pauper Litigation Exemption from Appeal Bond — Under Rule 3, section 22, authority to litigate as a pauper includes exemption from payment of legal fees and from filing an appeal bond, printed record, and printed brief. The Court applied this by holding that once such authority is granted, the litigant may appeal without filing an appeal bond, and the right persists until the court rules otherwise.
• Timeliness of Appeal Bond After Denial of Pauper Motion — When a court denies a pauper litigant's motion to appeal as a pauper, the time for filing the appeal bond is reckoned from receipt of the order denying the motion, excluding the period spent on a motion for reconsideration. The Court applied this to hold the P60 bond timely because it was filed six days after receipt of the denial of reconsideration.
• No Abuse of Discretion in Denying Pauper Status — The denial of a motion to appeal as a pauper is not an abuse of discretion where there is enough evidence to warrant the action. The Court applied this to uphold the respondent judge's denial.

• "shall include an exemption from payment of legal fees and from filing appeal bond, printed record and printed brief." — This is the Court's quotation of Rule 3, section 22, defining the scope of pauper authority and the basis for exempting petitioners from an appeal bond.
• "We take it that by virtue of the authority given by the court to petitioners to litigate as paupers in the case, they are entitled to appeal without need of filing an appeal bond, and this right can only be divested when the court rules otherwise." — This states the ratio: the pauper authority persists until the court rules otherwise, which made the later appeal bond timely.
• "In our opinion, the appeal bond has been filed on time because, as already stated, petitioners were entitled to appeal as paupers under the original authority until the court rules otherwise, and this ruling only came on January 4, 1952." — This is the core holding on timeliness.
• "With regard to the other question touching on the alleged abuse committed by respondent judge in denying the motion of petitioners to appeal as paupers, we find that said judge did not abuse his discretion in denying it. There is enough evidence to warrant his action." — This disposes of the abuse-of-discretion issue.

• Rule 3, Section 22, Rules of Court — Authority to litigate as pauper includes exemption from payment of legal fees and from filing appeal bond, printed record, and printed brief. The Court relied on this to hold that petitioners, having been granted pauper authority, were entitled to appeal without filing an appeal bond until the court ruled otherwise, making their later appeal bond timely.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.