GR 29416; (January, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29416. January 28, 1971.
CELSO VALERA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FOURTH DIVISION), ADORACION VALERA DE BRINGAS and ROMEO R. BRINGAS, respondents.
FACTS
The Court of First Instance of Abra rendered a decision on November 12, 1965, in a case concerning the acknowledgment of Adoracion Valera de Bringas as a natural child. Petitioner Celso Valera, a defendant, received a copy of the decision on November 15, 1965. On December 14, 1965, he filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond and was granted a thirty-day extension to file his record on appeal. The trial court approved his amended record on appeal on June 28, 1966.
The amended record on appeal, however, failed to state the date when the original record on appeal was filed. Consequently, it did not show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period. Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal in the Court of Appeals on this ground. Initially, the appellate court deferred the issue. Ultimately, the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 50, Section 1(a), in relation to Rule 41, Section 6, of the Rules of Court, for failure of the record on appeal to demonstrate timely perfection.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal because the amended record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which requires the record on appeal to include “such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time.” This requirement is not a mere technicality but is essential for the appellate court to acquire jurisdiction. Since ordinary appeals do not transmit the entire trial court record, the record on appeal itself must affirmatively establish timeliness.
Petitioner’s arguments were unavailing. First, while the original record on appeal may have had a filing date stamped on it, the Court of Appeals only received the amended record on appeal, which omitted this critical date. Second, the certification by the Clerk of Court could not cure this fatal omission. The appellant bears the exclusive burden of proving timeliness within the four corners of the approved record on appeal. The Court, citing precedents like Government v. Antonio, emphasized that the trial court’s approval of a record on appeal filed out of time cannot confer jurisdiction. Jurisdictional defects can be raised at any stage. The dismissal was proper, rendering discussion of the case’s merits unnecessary.