SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-13034. May 30, 1960. ]
GREGORIO ARONG, ET AL., petitioners and appellants, v. VICTOR WAJING, ET AL., respondents and appellees.
Martin N. Francisco for Appellants.
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ananias V. Marilao and Nasario R. Pacquiao for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
PLEADING AND PRACTICE; APPEAL; DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. — Dismissal is in order not only because of want of specific assignment or errors in the appellant’s brief, but because no error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter will be considered unless assigned.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J. :
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu upholding the legality of the petitioners’ removal from office by the respondent Mayor, Victor Wajing. Appellants were former temporary employees of the municipality of Cordova, Cebu.
In violation of Section 17, Rule 48, of the Rules of Court, the appellants’ brief does not contain an assignment of errors. Dismissal of the appeal is in order, not only because want of specific assignment of errors in the appellants’ brief is a ground therefor under section 1 (f) of Rule 52, but because section 5 of Rule 53 provides that no error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors. We have time and again enforced said reglementary provisions, and there is nothing in the present case to warrant its exclusion from the established practice.
Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.
In violation of Section 17, Rule 48, of the Rules of Court, the appellants’ brief does not contain an assignment of errors. Dismissal of the appeal is in order, not only because want of specific assignment of errors in the appellants’ brief is a ground therefor under section 1 (f) of Rule 52, but because section 5 of Rule 53 provides that no error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors. We have time and again enforced said reglementary provisions, and there is nothing in the present case to warrant its exclusion from the established practice.
Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.
