Luchayco v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, as defendants in Civil Case No. 3961, lost their case and sought to elevate it to a higher court by filing a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal on time. Procedural History: Upon objection by the plaintiff, the respondent judge required the defendants to amend their record on appeal by correcting errors and inserting specific pleadings related to a motion to dismiss a counterclaim and an application for receivership. The defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition to compel the respondent judge to approve the record on appeal, arguing that the omitted portions of the pleadings were mere arguments of counsel and immaterial, and that clerical errors were only in the copy furnished to the appellee.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in requiring the amendment of the record on appeal to include specific pleadings and correct clerical errors. Whether the arguments of counsel in a pleading, if material, must be included in the record on appeal. Whether the pleadings related to the motion to dismiss counterclaim and the application for receivership are material and should be included in the record on appeal. Whether the appellants are obligated to furnish the appellee with a correct and complete copy of the record on appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. Petitioners must comply with the order requiring the amendment of their record on appeal within ten days after the decision becomes final.
Ratio Decidendi
On the materiality of arguments in pleadings: The Court held that the petitioners' position was untenable. While oral arguments during trial need not be reproduced in the record on appeal, the arguments of counsel within a pleading are part thereof. If the pleading itself is material and included in the record on appeal, its subsequent parts containing the attorneys' reasons and arguments may not be suppressed, as their exclusion would prevent the appellate court from understanding the basis of the dispute, such as the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the counterclaim. The ruling in Aliño vs. Villamor was clarified to refer only to oral arguments during trial. On the materiality of pleadings related to receivership: The Court found that the appellee's contention that the pleadings on receivership might contain matters supporting his position and the appealed decision could not be tested at that stage. Given the lower court's decision in his favor, the Supreme Court was not in a position to impute abuse of discretion, especially considering the Court's pronouncements recommending liberality in including pleadings in the record on appeal and giving prima facie reliance on the trial judge's discretion. The additional expense for appellants was noted but deemed recoverable as costs if they won the appeal. On clerical errors and duty to furnish correct copies: The Court stated that it is the duty of the appellant to furnish the appellee with a correct copy of the record on appeal, complete and accurate. Allowing appellants to omit material portions of pleadings or leave blanks for the appellee to fill would open the door to further omissions in other cases, undermining the integrity of the appellate process. On the overall requirement for amendment: The petition to compel the judge to approve the record on appeal could not be granted because the petitioners had not complied with the judge's order to amend the record. The Court directed the petitioners to comply with the order, noting that the judge had not fixed a period for compliance, allowing them to do so within ten days after the decision becomes final.
Main Doctrine
The arguments of counsel in a pleading, if material to the issues, must be included in the record on appeal, and the trial court has discretion to require their inclusion. Appellants are responsible for furnishing the appellee with a correct and complete copy of the record on appeal.