GR L 39026; (September, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39026 September 30, 1982
SOTERO RECTO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTH DIVISION) and CLAUDIO FRANCISCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sotero Recto filed a complaint for legal redemption against Claudio Francisco in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. The trial court dismissed the complaint. Recto filed a Notice of Appeal, a cash appeal bond, and subsequently submitted his Record on Appeal. The Record on Appeal, however, did not indicate the date Recto received a copy of the trial court’s judgment. Respondent Francisco did not object to the Record on Appeal, and the trial court approved it in an Order dated October 25, 1967, stating “there being no objection thereto.” The appeal proceeded, with both parties submitting their briefs.
Approximately five years later, the Court of Appeals, acting motu proprio, dismissed the appeal. It ruled that the Record on Appeal failed to comply with the material data rule, as it did not show on its face the date of receipt of the trial court’s decision to prove the appeal was perfected on time. The appellate court denied reconsideration, holding the defect was fatal and jurisdictional, rendering its approval by the trial court irrelevant.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal motu proprio for the Record on Appeal’s failure to state the date of receipt of the trial court’s decision.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, adopting a liberal application of the material data rule. The legal logic is that the defect in the Record on Appeal—the missing date of receipt—is cured by the trial court’s approval. The trial court’s order of approval constitutes a factual determination that the appeal was timely perfected. As established in Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals, a trial judge would not approve an untimely record on appeal. Therefore, an appellate court may properly rely on this determination.
The Supreme Court acknowledged its previous rigid application of the rule but, following a line of cases beginning with Berkenkotter, has liberalized its interpretation to prevent the sacrifice of substantive rights on technical grounds. The absence of an objection from the adverse party and the subsequent approval by the trial court validated the appeal. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for determination on the merits.