G.R. No. L-37124. May 5, 1976.
ISABEL ANDAYA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and BENEDICTO RAMOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Isabel Andaya was the defendant-appellant in a case before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. After receiving an adverse decision, she moved for and was granted a 15-day extension to file a motion for reconsideration. She filed said motion, which was later denied. On the same day she received the order of denial, she perfected her appeal by filing her notice of appeal and appeal bond. Her Record on Appeal was subsequently approved by the trial court.
Private respondent Benedicto Ramos, the plaintiff-appellee, moved to dismiss the appeal in the Court of Appeals. He argued that the appeal was perfected late because the Record on Appeal failed to include the trial court’s order granting the 15-day extension to file the motion for reconsideration. Without this order in the Record on Appeal, respondent court computed the period and concluded that the motion for reconsideration was filed on the 45th day, making the subsequent appeal untimely.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal based solely on the omission of the extension order from the Record on Appeal, despite the trial court’s approval of said record.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for adjudication on the merits. The ruling is anchored on the liberal application of the material data rule under Rule 41, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. The purpose of this rule is to avoid delay by enabling the appellate court to determine timeliness from the Record on Appeal itself without examining the original records.
The Court, citing controlling jurisprudence like Pimentel vs. Court of Appeals and Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals, held that where the trial court, in its order approving the Record on Appeal, finds it to have been filed on time or “in order,” and the adverse party does not impugn the veracity of this finding, the appellate court may properly rely on such certification. Here, the trial court approved Andaya’s corrected Record on Appeal, effectively certifying its timeliness. Respondent Ramos did not object to its approval below and filed no brief in the Supreme Court, leaving the trial court’s finding undisputed.
The omission of the extension order, while a technical flaw, does not warrant dismissal when the fact of timely perfection is not genuinely contested. The reason for the strict rule ceases when the appellate court can rely on the trial court’s unambiguous determination. Since there was no showing the appeal was frivolous, Andaya’s right to appeal on substantive grounds must be upheld.