G.R. No. L-35234 May 26, 1977
AMADEO GARCIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORPORATION, ELPIDIO UNGRIA, CATALINA CAPINDING, and BRUNO SUBDIAGA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Amadeo Garcia filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of private respondents in the Court of Appeals, arguing that their record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period. The record indicated the trial court’s decision was dated January 12, 1970, with the notice of appeal filed on February 25, 1970, and the appeal bond and record on appeal submitted three days later. Invoking the mandatory and jurisdictional rule from Atlas Consolidated Mining Co. v. Progressive Labor Association, the respondent Court initially granted the motion and dismissed the appeal in a June 18, 1970 resolution.
Upon motion for reconsideration by private respondents, the Court of Appeals reversed itself in an August 12, 1970 resolution. It considered a certification from the clerk of the lower court stating the decision was served on counsel only on February 2, 1970, and that the notice of appeal, cash bond, and record on appeal were all filed on March 30, 1970. The appellate court also gave weight to the trial court’s order approving the record on appeal as seasonably filed. It adopted a liberal interpretation of procedural rules to avoid dismissing an appeal perfected on time due to a harmless technical omission in the record’s preparation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its prior dismissal and reinstating the appeal based on a liberal interpretation of procedural rules concerning the perfection of an appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition as moot and academic. The legal proceeding became inconsequential because, during its pendency, the Court of Appeals had already rendered a decision on the merits of the reinstated appeal (CA-G.R. No. 46220-R) on September 17, 1976, which was favorable to petitioner Garcia. The dispositive portion of that decision affirmed the lower court’s judgment, albeit with a modification excluding an award for attorney’s fees against the PHHC. Consequently, the very relief petitioner sought from the Supreme Court—to annul the appellate court’s order reinstating the appeal—was rendered pointless, as he had ultimately prevailed in that appealed case. No useful purpose would be served by resolving the procedural controversy, which was superseded by the final judgment on the merits. The Court thus refrained from examining the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ liberal application of procedural rules, as the issue had been overtaken by events. No costs were awarded.