G.R. No. L-31018. June 29, 1973.
LORENZO VELASCO AND SOCORRO J. VELASCO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Lorenzo and Socorro Velasco appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance of Quezon City dismissing their complaint for specific performance against respondent Magdalena Estate, Inc. The Court of Appeals required them to file their printed record on appeal within 60 days, expiring on January 17, 1969. Allegedly on January 15, 1969, petitioners mailed a motion for a 30-day extension to file the printed record, citing printing press delays. They filed the printed record on February 10, 1969. Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal for late filing. Initially, the Court of Appeals denied the motion and granted the extension, admitting the belated record.
Upon respondent’s motion for reconsideration, supported by a certification from the Makati Postmaster, it was revealed that the registry receipts (Nos. 0215 and 0216) presented by petitioners as proof of mailing on January 15, 1969, did not correspond to their motion. The postmaster certified that no such registered letters were posted by petitioners’ counsel on that date; the numbers actually pertained to letters mailed by different senders on January 3, 1969. Petitioners opposed, submitting an affidavit from their mailing clerk and the receipts.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the printed record on appeal within the reglementary period.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The ruling is anchored on the principle that procedural rules, particularly those prescribing periods for perfecting appeals or filing required pleadings, are mandatory and jurisdictional. Non-compliance results in the loss of the right to appeal. The Court found the petitioners’ claim of timely filing via registered mail to be unsupported by credible evidence. The postmaster’s official certification, a public document enjoying the presumption of regularity, categorically contradicted the petitioners’ assertions and their proffered registry receipts. The Court emphasized that the 60-day period for filing the printed record on appeal is not a mere technicality but a mandatory requirement essential to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. The petitioners’ failure to adhere to this period warranted the dismissal of their appeal. The Court further noted that while it has, in the interest of justice, occasionally relaxed procedural rules, such liberality cannot be invoked when a party’s own negligence or deliberate attempt to mislead the court is apparent, as suggested by the discrepancy in the postal evidence. The dismissal was therefore proper, and no grave abuse of discretion attended the appellate court’s resolution.