Sarmiento v. Gatmaitan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from an action for acknowledgment and support of two minor children, Jaime Ponce and Romeo Ponce, filed by their mother, Catalina Ponce, against Fernando Sarmiento. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. 2. Procedural History: Following the trial court's decision on March 29, 1971, the defendant, Fernando Sarmiento, filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal. The trial court approved the record on appeal and appeal bond on June 18, 1971. Subsequently, the private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, leading the trial court to order an amended record on appeal, which was approved on January 11, 1972. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 50093-R, dismissed Sarmiento's appeal on June 18, 1973, due to the lack of transcript citations in the appellant's brief and the absence of an averment regarding an appeal bond in the Record on Appeal. A motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was denied on August 3, 1973. 3. The Petition: Fernando Sarmiento filed a petition with the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' dismissal of his appeal. He argued that under the Interim Rules of Court, an appeal bond is no longer required and that this rule could be applied retroactively. However, the Supreme Court noted that while an appeal bond may not be required under newer rules, the record indicates that the cash appeal bond was paid long after the period for perfecting the appeal had lapsed, and the record is silent on the filing date of the record on appeal. The Court concluded that the appeal was not perfected on time, rendering the trial court's decision final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal was perfected on time, considering the filing of the notice of appeal and the payment of the cash appeal bond. Whether the approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond by the trial court rendered the appeal valid despite deficiencies in perfecting the appeal, specifically the untimely payment of the appeal bond. Whether the Interim Rules of Court, which no longer require an appeal bond, can be given retroactive effect to validate the appeal, despite the trial court's decision having become final and executory.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the resolutions of the respondent Court of Appeals dated June 18, 1973, and August 3, 1973, are affirmed. The appeal was dismissed with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the perfection of appeal: The Court reiterated that under the 1964 Rules of Court, an appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal within the reglementary period. In this case, while a notice of appeal was filed on time, the cash appeal bond was paid only on November 7, 1971, which was long after the period for perfecting an appeal had lapsed. The records were silent as to when the record on appeal was actually filed. Consequently, the decision of the trial court became final and executory on May 14, 1971, thirty days from the petitioner's receipt of the decision on April 14, 1971. On the effect of the trial court's approval: The Court clarified that the approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond by the trial court, as shown in its order dated June 18, 1971, did not render the appeal valid, effective, and legal. This is because the essential requirement of timely perfection, particularly the payment of the appeal bond, was not met. The judgment had already become final and executory prior to the actual payment of the bond. On the retroactive application of the Interim Rules: The Court acknowledged that under the Interim Rules of Court, an appeal bond is no longer required. However, it emphasized that while this new procedural rule may be given retroactive effect, its application is limited to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its approval. It does not extend to actions that had already become final and executory. Since the trial court's decision had become final and executory on May 14, 1971, the provisions of the Interim Rules of Court could not be applied to revive a lapsed appeal.
Main Doctrine
The approval of a record on appeal and appeal bond by the trial court does not render the appeal valid, effective, and legal if the appeal bond was paid long after the period for perfecting an appeal had lapsed, rendering the judgment final and executory.