Baltao & Co. v. China Banking Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves a civil case between E. S. Baltao & Co. Inc. (petitioner) and China Banking Corporation and Federico O. Borromeo, Inc. (respondents). 2. Procedural History: The petitioner appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance of Rizal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal on the grounds that the record on appeal did not contain the date the petitioner received a copy of the appealed decision, a requirement under Section 1(a), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. This dismissal was based on the perceived lack of mandatory and jurisdictional information. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' resolutions that dismissed their appeal. The petitioner argued that the appeal was perfected on time, and that the trial court had approved an amended record on appeal which implicitly found the appeal to be timely. The Supreme Court was asked to set aside the dismissal and direct the Court of Appeals to give due course to the appeal, allowing the petitioner to file their brief.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of the omission in the record on appeal of the date of receipt of the appealed decision by the petitioner. Whether the issue of the timeliness of the appeal constituted a prejudicial question that should have been awaited before the appellate court resolved the issue of the appellant's brief.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals are set aside, and the respondent Court of Appeals is directed to give due course to petitioner's appeal by granting it a reasonable period within which to file its brief.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal due to omission in the record on appeal: The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's appeal was, in fact, perfected on time. Copy of the decision was received by petitioner's counsel on January 28, 1969. Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file its record on appeal on February 26, 1969, which was granted. The Record on Appeal was filed on March 12, 1969. The trial court, in acting on the motion for approval of the Amended Record on Appeal, directed the insertion of additional pages and, with the compliance, approved the Amended Record on Appeal, Notice of Appeal, and Appeal Bond, and directed the Clerk of Court to give due course to the appeal. The Court reiterated its ruling in Araneta vs. Doronila (72 SCRA 413), where it held that when the appellee did not object to the original record on appeal on the ground of being out of time, and the purpose of the 'material data rule' is to avoid debate on the timeliness of the appeal, such timeliness being no longer disputable, the amended record on appeal could be read as including the finding that the original thereof had been filed on time. The Court emphasized that where the appellee does not deny the factual timeliness of the appeal approved by the trial court, and the only ground invoked for dismissal is the omission in the record on appeal of the facts showing such timeliness, the technical objection is inconsistent with substantial justice, citing Pimentel vs. Court of Appeals (64 SCRA 475) and other similar cases. The Court advised members of the bar to comply with the rules to avoid such situations. On the issue of prejudicial question: The Court agreed with the petitioner that the issue before the Supreme Court constituted a prejudicial question. The resolution of the petition would determine whether an appeal was necessary for which a brief would be required. However, the Court noted that it would have been better practice for the petitioner to have taken appropriate steps in the Court of Appeals to suspend the period for filing the brief.
Main Doctrine
Where the appellee does not deny the factual timeliness of an appeal approved by the trial court, and the sole ground invoked for dismissal is the omission in the record on appeal of the facts showing such timeliness, the technical objection is inconsistent with substantial justice, and the amended record on appeal may be read as including the finding that the original thereof had been filed on time.