GR 30083; (October, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30083 October 22, 1970
INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEREZ HONG, respondents.
FACTS
Perez Hong filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Industrial Company, Inc. for recovery of a sum of money representing a deposit or advance payment for sacks which the defendant failed to deliver. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond. The trial court approved the defendant’s record on appeal. The defendant-appellant later filed its printed record on appeal with the Court of Appeals. The plaintiff-appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time. The Court of Appeals initially denied the motion but granted a motion for reconsideration and dismissed the appeal. The appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal was denied, prompting the petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The controversy centered on the averments in the record on appeal, which stated the date of receipt of the decision, the filing of the appeal bond and notice of appeal, the grant of extensions to file the record on appeal, and the actual filing date of the record on appeal. The appellee contended that the record on appeal did not include copies of the motions for extension and the orders granting them, nor did it show when the appellant received the extension orders, thus failing to demonstrate the timeliness of the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the record on appeal complied with Section 6 of Revised Rule 41 by containing data showing that the appeal was perfected on time.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals and ordered the reinstatement of the appeal. The Court held that the record on appeal substantially complied with Section 6 of Revised Rule 41. The recitals in the record on appeal provided the necessary data: the appellant received the decision on July 20, 1967; filed the notice of appeal and appeal bond on August 19, 1967; was granted extensions to file the record on appeal up to October 15, 1967; and actually filed the record on appeal on October 14, 1967. These recitals sufficiently apprised the appellate court of the timeliness of the appeal without the need to incorporate copies of the motions for extension and the orders granting them, as such documents were not related to the appealed judgment nor necessary for understanding the issues involved. The Court distinguished this case from prior rulings where the records on appeal lacked any data indicating the timeliness of the appeal.