GR L 4992; (October, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4992 October 27, 1952
ALFREDO MIRANDA, through PATRICIO D. SENADOR, as guardian ad litem, petitioner, vs. DAVID GUANZON, ET AL., and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
On March 8, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in favor of petitioner Alfredo Miranda against respondent David Guanzon in Civil Case No. 8465. Respondent received a copy of the judgment on March 17, 1951. On April 5, 1951, nineteen days after receipt, respondent filed his notice of appeal and record on appeal. The lower court approved the record on appeal on April 7, 1951, and directed its transmittal to the Court of Appeals. On June 9, 1951, petitioner filed a motion in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal on the ground that respondent failed to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period prescribed by Section 17, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals denied the motion on June 11, 1951, reasoning that petitioner failed to object to the approval of the record on appeal in the lower court and that raising the objection only after the record had been printed was prejudicial to appellant, constituting a waiver of the right to object. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion to dismiss the appeal despite respondent’s failure to perfect the appeal within the mandatory and jurisdictional reglementary period.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the case falls under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, requiring an appeal to be perfected within fifteen days under Section 17, Rule 41. Respondent filed his notice of appeal after nineteen days, thereby failing to perfect the appeal within the reglementary period. This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply renders the judgment final and deprives the court of jurisdiction. The certification or approval of the record on appeal after the period cannot restore lost jurisdiction. The objection to such failure can be raised even for the first time on appeal or in the appellate court, as it affects jurisdiction and cannot be waived. The cases cited by respondent regarding waiver involve objections that do not affect jurisdiction and are thus inapplicable.