Luna v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Manuel R. L. Luna filed an appeal from an adverse judgment dated March 20, 1972, rendered by the Oriental Mindoro Court of First Instance. He filed his original Record on Appeal via registered mail on April 26, 1972, within the thirty-day reglementary period. Due to deficiencies, he was required to file a First and then a Second Amended Record on Appeal. In the Second Amended Record on Appeal dated October 4, 1972, the petitioner expressly stated it was filed "within the 20-day period fixed by this Honorable Court in its latest Order." Procedural History: No opposition to the appeal was filed by the respondents. The trial court issued an Order dated October 27, 1972, approving the Second Amended Record on Appeal, expressly finding that the notice of appeal, the second amended record on appeal, and bond "(have) been filed within the reglementary period provided for by law, and there (is) no opposition to the approval of the same." The appeal was docketed in the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner filed the required printed copies within the reglementary period. Subsequently, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging failure to make the record on appeal show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the period fixed by the Rules. The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution of June 4, 1973, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Second Amended Record on Appeal failed to state "all the data to indicate that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period," specifically mentioning the date of filing of the original record on appeal and, by implication, motions for and orders granting extensions. The Petition: The petitioner filed the present petition, arguing that the dismissal of his appeal by the respondent Court of Appeals constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The respondents, in their comment, did not question the accuracy of the trial court's finding that the appeal was filed within the reglementary period.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to include specific material data (motions for extension) in the Record on Appeal, despite the trial court's express and undisputed finding that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The Court set aside the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the respondent Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the appeal was unwarranted and constituted a grave abuse of discretion. Applying the liberalized doctrine from Pimentel v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-39423), the Court held that when a trial court finds and declares in its order of approval that a Record on Appeal was filed 'on time' or 'within the reglementary period,' and this finding is not questioned or disputed by the adverse party, the appellate court may properly rely on such order. The Court reasoned that the raison d'etre (reason for existence) of the Material Data Rule under Rule 41, Section 6—which is to allow the appellate court to verify timeliness without needing the original records—is satisfied by the trial court's express determination of timeliness in the approval order. Since the petitioner had expressly stated in his record on appeal that it was filed within the period fixed by the court, and the trial court confirmed this without any opposition from the respondents, there was substantial compliance with the rules. The Court emphasized that when the veracity of the trial court's finding of timeliness is not in dispute, the literal reason for the material data rule ceases. Therefore, the non-inclusion of the motions and orders for extension of time in the printed record on appeal is not a fatal defect that justifies the summary dismissal of the appeal.
Main Doctrine
Where the trial court finds and declares in its order of approval of a record on appeal that it was filed 'on time' or 'within the reglementary period,' and the correctness, accuracy, and veracity of such finding are not impugned, questioned, or disputed by the adverse party, the non-inclusion in the record on appeal of a motion and order for extension of time for the filing of the same is not fatal and does not warrant dismissal of the appeal, as the appellate court may properly rely on the trial court's order of approval and determination of timeliness.