[ G.R. No. 10050. November 28, 1914 ] 28 Phil. 513
[ G.R. No. 10050. November 28, 1914 ]
CIRILO B. SANTOS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CECILIO RIVERA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
TRENT, J.:
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the rules of this court in the preparation of his brief. Rules 19 and 20 read as follows:
“19. Prefixed to the brief of the appellant, but stated separately, shall be an assignment of errors intended to be urged. Each specification of error shall be separately, distinctly, and concisely stated without repetition, and they shall be numbered consecutively. All briefs shall be printed and shall exhibit an extract of the argument on the points of law or fact to be discussed, with reference to the pages of the record and the authorities relied upon in support of each point. The brief of the appellant shall also contain a concise statement of the facts in the case.
“20. No error not affecting the jurisdiction over the subject matter will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors and relied upon in the brief.”
The appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint with costs after sustaining a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it does not state a cause of action. Under the usual heading, the brief starts off with the following paragraphs:
“This is an appeal in the above-entitled cause against an order handed down on January 24, 1914, dismissing the complaint, and excepted to by the appellant.
“In the opinion of the appellant, the complaint sets forth facts of sufficient weight to constitute a cause of action, and the demurrer interposed against the same ought to be overruled, notwithstanding the opinion of the Honorable (judge) Crossfield, who holding the personal action of the appellant to be a real action, arrived at the conclusion that article 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be applied in this case. This, in our opinion, is an error which greatly prejudices the interest of the plaintiff, * * *.”
The brief then continues to discuss the facts alleged in the complaint and their sufficiency in law to constitute a right of action. It is urged that this is not a compliance with the above-quoted rules nor with our decision in Paterno vs. City of Manila (17 Phil. Rep., 26), to which we also add Santiago vs. Felix (24 Phil. Rep., 378).
In the first case, “counsel for appellant in his printed brief makes no specific assignment of errors, but argues in a general way two questions.” In the second case, the single error assigned was, “The Court of First Instance of this city incurred error in rendering the judgment appealed from, for it is contrary to law and the weight of the evidence.”
It is apparent that the case at bar is to be distinguished from the first case, because there is in the opening statement of the appellant a reasonable specific assignment of error, to wit, that the court erred in holding that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. While not being set off by itself and labeled as an assignment of error, this statement makes the point as effectually if not as artistically. Such a statement requires an inspection of the complaint and of the complaint alone for its determination. To set off the error assigned with an appropriate title would tend to clearness of style and hence be more acceptable to the court, but it would not avoid the necessity of examining the contents of the complaint.
The present case may also be readily distinguished from the second case cited. There are so many ways in which a judgment may be contrary to law and the weight of the evidence that such a general statement leaves the court absolutely in the dark as to what to look for. An alleged error should have definite bounds and be limited as far as possible to a single point. Nothing could be more irreducible than the statement that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, without limiting the extent of the inquiry. For such a statement requires an inspection of the complaint as a whole, and nothing less will suffice to dispose of it. It requires an examination of only one particular portion of the record, to wit, the initial pleading—the complaint.
On the other hand, in the two cases cited, the cases had gone to judgment on the merits and a mere general discussion of what had transpired or the statement that the judgment was contrary to law left the court to struggle through the briefs and records in an effort to pick out something wrong.
Although the brief of the appellant is not a literal compliance with the rules of the court, nor is it a work of art from a professional point of view, still, we do not believe the departure from the prescribed practice has been so radical as to call for a dismissal of the case. We do not desire, however, to be understood as holding that it is not absolutely necessary to comply substantially with the above-quoted rules.
The motion is therefore denied.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Carson, and Araullo, JJ., concur.