GR 33798; (July, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33798 July 14, 1978
SENECIO M. DURAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE S. CHAN, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Senecio M. Duran filed a special civil action for certiorari, contending that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to dismiss the appeal of respondents Jose Chan, et al. The motion was based on the ground that the record on appeal did not show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period. The lower court rendered a decision ex parte after the defendants and their counsel failed to appear at trial. Defendants received a copy of the decision on July 29, 1970, filed a verified motion for new trial on August 18, 1970, which was denied, and received the order of denial on October 5, 1970. Petitioner initially admitted the appeal was perfected on October 12, 1970, but later discovered the record on appeal was actually filed on October 22, 1970, and argued this was beyond the reglementary period computed from receipt of the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the appeal on the grounds that: (1) the appeal was perfected beyond the reglementary period; (2) the record on appeal contained a typographical error in a date; (3) the record on appeal failed to state the full names of all parties in the caption; and (4) the clerk of court’s certification was incomplete.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the central issue of timeliness, the Court applied the ruling in Vda. de Borromeo vs. Court of Appeals. Where a judgment is rendered ex parte, an aggrieved party’s proper recourse from an order denying a motion for new trial based on mistake or excusable neglect is to appeal from that order. The reglementary period is thus thirty days from receipt of the order of denial. Here, respondents received the denial order on October 5, 1970, making the appeal period expire on November 4, 1970. The filing of the record on appeal on October 22, 1970, was therefore timely. The alleged alteration of a date from October 21 to October 12 in the printed record was satisfactorily explained as a typographical error by affidavits from proof-readers.
The other procedural objections were also unmeritorious. The failure to list all defendants’ names in the caption, while a deficiency, was supplied elsewhere in the record and is not a ground for dismissal. The material data rule is to be construed liberally to promote substantial justice. Similarly, the clerk of court’s certification, though following an old form and not explicitly certifying the correctness of filing dates, does not warrant dismissal of the appeal. Procedural rules should be liberally construed to avoid injustice.