GR 28722; (October, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28722. October 29, 1971.
THE IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and VALDEMONTE FINANCE CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
In Civil Case No. 62707, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment against Imperial Insurance, Inc. (petitioner) in favor of Valdemonte Finance Corporation (respondent). The petitioner timely filed its notice of appeal, an appeal cash bond of P120, and its typewritten record on appeal on May 26, 1966. The trial court approved the record on appeal on June 4, 1966, and the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals. After the petitioner filed its appellant’s brief, the respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that the record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period, specifically because it omitted any mention of the filing of the appeal bond.
The Court of Appeals granted the motion to dismiss in a resolution dated December 12, 1967. It held that while the absence of a formal notice of appeal might be condoned, the record on appeal’s failure to contain data showing the filing of the appeal bond and its date was a fatal defect. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The petitioner then filed this certiorari proceeding, arguing the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal on the ground that the record on appeal failed to show on its face the timely perfection of the appeal due to the omission of data regarding the filing of the appeal bond.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The ruling is grounded on strict compliance with mandatory procedural rules governing the perfection of appeals. Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires the record on appeal to include “such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time.” Section 1(a), Rule 50 provides that failure of the record on appeal to show this on its face is a ground for dismissal.
The perfection of an appeal necessitates, among other steps, the timely filing of an appeal bond. The petitioner’s record on appeal contained no statement or reference whatsoever to the filing of its appeal bond or the date thereof. This omission constituted a fatal failure to include an essential jurisdictional datum, preventing the appellate court from determining the timeliness of the appeal from the face of the record. The Court rejected the petitioner’s excuse that it filed the bond and record on the same day, making inclusion impossible. The record revealed a 4½-month period between the filing and the clerk’s certification during which the petitioner could have easily sought leave to amend the record on appeal to include the necessary certification. Its failure to do so demonstrated a lack of diligence. The mandatory and jurisdictional nature of these rules justifies dismissal, as laxity would prejudice litigants who diligently observe them. The petition was denied, and the dismissal of the appeal was affirmed.