Perartilla v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the right of redemption as a co-owner. The petitioners, the Perartillas, were the defendants in the original case, while Gonzalo de la Peña, represented by his heirs, was the plaintiff seeking to exercise this right. 2. Procedural History: The Perartillas filed an original record on appeal on December 29, 1970, within the thirty-day reglementary period. Following the trial court's denial of a motion for execution pending appeal on January 23, 1971, the Perartillas, claiming they were not served with the order, learned of it over a year later on April 7, 1972. They submitted an amended record on appeal on April 12, 1972. The trial court granted an extension up to September 23, 1972, for further amendment, and subsequently approved the second amended record on appeal on November 4, 1972, without objection from the opposing party. The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are before the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals' resolution dated June 16, 1973, which dismissed their appeal. The dismissal was based on the printed amended record on appeal not demonstrating timely perfection. The petitioners argue that the dismissal was erroneous, citing that the original record on appeal was filed on time and that subsequent amendments, even if delayed, should relate back to the original filing date, especially after the trial court's approval of the amended record. They contend that the material data rule, while generally mandatory, has been relaxed in later jurisprudence, giving weight to the trial court's approval.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal based on the alleged lack of material data showing timely perfection of the appeal. Whether the approval of the amended record on appeal by the trial court, despite the delay in its filing, should be given due course.
Ruling
The resolution of dismissal of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The Intermediate Appellate Court is directed to give due course to petitioners' appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of material data: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals was erroneous. While acknowledging that the material data rule in Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court was construed as mandatory and jurisdictional in earlier cases, the Court noted that later cases have relaxed this rule. The approval of the record on appeal by the trial court should be accorded great weight, as a trial judge would not approve a record on appeal that was not timely filed. The Court emphasized that the lawyers of the parties were negligent in not expediting action on the record on appeal by the lower court, but this negligence should not prejudice the parties' right to appeal. On the timeliness and approval of the amended record on appeal: The Court found that the original record on appeal was unquestionably filed on time. Although the amended record on appeal was filed more than one year after the expiration of the thirty-day reglementary period, the amendments were necessitated by the trial court's order denying the motion for execution pending appeal. The Court reiterated the principle that an amended record on appeal is deemed to have been filed on the presentation of the original, which was done within the reglementary period. The fact that the trial court approved the second amended record on appeal without objection from the respondent further supported the view that the appeal should be given due course. The Court cited B.E. Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals and Diola vs. Court of Appeals in support of its ruling.
Main Doctrine
The approval of a record on appeal by the trial court should be accorded great weight, and the material data rule, while mandatory, has been relaxed in favor of substantial justice, especially when the original record on appeal was filed on time and the amendments were necessitated by subsequent court orders.