GR 35093; (May, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35093. May 19, 1978. E. S. BALTAO & CO. INC., petitioner, vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION and FEDERICO O. BORROMEO, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner E. S. Baltao & Co. Inc. filed a petition for certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals’ resolutions dismissing its appeal from a Court of First Instance decision. The dismissal was based on the ground that the record on appeal filed by the petitioner failed to state the date when the petitioner received a copy of the trial court’s decision, a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement under Section 1(a), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. During the Supreme Court proceedings, the parties were directed to verify the actual date of receipt. Respondent China Banking Corporation manifested that petitioner’s counsel received the decision on January 28, 1969, filed a motion for extension on February 26, 1969 (which was granted), and subsequently filed the record on appeal on March 12, 1969. This established that the appeal was factually perfected on time.
The trial court had previously approved the amended record on appeal via an order that directed the insertion of missing pages and, upon compliance, approved the record on appeal, notice of appeal, and appeal bond. The respondents moved for dismissal in the appellate court solely based on the technical omission in the record on appeal, not on any claim that the appeal was actually filed out of time.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal based on a technical omission in the record on appeal despite the factual timeliness of the appeal being undisputed and the trial court having approved the record on appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and directed it to give due course to the appeal. The Court held that the strict, literal compliance rule regarding the inclusion of “material data” in the record on appeal, as cited by respondents, is intended to avoid debate on the timeliness of an appeal. However, where the appellee does not contest the factual timeliness of the appeal—as confirmed by the trial court’s approval and the parties’ verification—and the objection is based purely on a technical omission, dismissing the appeal is inconsistent with substantial justice.
The circumstances were deemed practically identical to Araneta vs. Doronila (72 SCRA 413), where the Supreme Court ruled that when an amended record on appeal is approved by the trial court and the timeliness is no longer disputable by the appellee, the record on appeal can be read as sufficiently complying with the rules. The Court emphasized that technical objections should not prevail when the appeal is verifiably timely and the trial court has found it so. The Court also noted that while counsel should diligently comply with procedural rules, the paramount interest of substantial justice warranted reinstating the appeal. The issue concerning the non-filing of the appellant’s brief was considered a prejudicial question dependent on the outcome of this petition.