G.R. No. 103733 December 14, 1993
INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, E.T. HENRY & CO., INC, SPOUSES ENRIQUE AND LILIA TAN, AND HI-CEMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Insular Bank of Asia and America filed a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul two resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The first, dated May 22, 1991, denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the private respondents (E.T. Henry & Co., Inc., spouses Enrique and Lilia Tan, and Hi-Cement Corporation) from the trial court’s decision. The second, dated November 21, 1991, denied the motion for reconsideration. The trial court had rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner on June 30, 1989. The private respondents filed their notices of appeal in June and July 1989. The petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal against Hi-Cement, which was denied by the trial court on September 25, 1989. On March 26, 1991, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal with the Court of Appeals on the ground of the respondents’ gross inaction for failing to cause the elevation of the records to the appellate court for over a year and six months. The respondents opposed, stating they made several follow-ups but the records could not be elevated because transcripts of stenographic notes were incomplete, as the stenographers who took them were no longer with the trial court branch. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss. Subsequently, the respondents submitted photocopies and then original duplicate copies of missing transcripts in their possession to the trial court. On August 13, 1991, all parties filed a joint manifestation submitting a photocopy of the last missing transcript. The trial court then issued an order on August 16, 1991, directing the elevation of the records.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the private respondents and in denying the motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed and the assailed resolutions were affirmed. The Court found that the factual findings of the appellate court—that the private respondents could not be faulted for the delay as they made follow-ups and the delay was due to missing transcripts, and that substantial justice would be served by allowing the appeal—were supported by substantial evidence and were thus conclusive. The Court distinguished the cited cases (Fagtanac, Loyola, Estella) as inapplicable because, unlike here, those cases involved appellants who failed to act despite court orders to elevate records. In this case, there was no such order from the trial court until June 21, 1991, and the respondents acted promptly when directed to assist. The Court emphasized that dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon, and the policy is to encourage hearings on the merits.