G.R. No. L-37362 November 29, 1973
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ADOLFO FERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications was the defendant in a damages case filed by private respondent Adolfo Fernandez in the Court of First Instance of Dagupan City. The trial court rendered a decision against the bank on March 10, 1972. The bank received the decision on April 6, 1972, filed a motion for reconsideration by registered mail on May 4, 1972, and received the order denying said motion on August 4, 1972. On that same day, August 4, the bank filed its Notice of Appeal, Appeal Bond, and Record on Appeal by registered mail. The trial court approved the Record on Appeal on August 22, 1972, finding it sufficient and timely. However, after approval and before printing, the Branch Clerk of Court, without the bank’s knowledge or authority, altered the original Record on Appeal. He changed the filing date of the motion for reconsideration from May 4 to May 9, 1972, and the filing date of the appeal documents from August 4 to August 14, 1972.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the bank’s appeal for alleged failure of the printed Record on Appeal to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time, due to the unauthorized alterations made by a court clerk after the trial court’s approval.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and nullified the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the Record on Appeal, as approved by the trial court, is the controlling document. The alterations were made unilaterally by a court clerk after judicial approval, without notice to the appellant, and were not corrections of clerical errors but unauthorized modifications. The approved original Record on Appeal contained all necessary data, including the true filing dates supported by registry receipts and return cards, which conclusively showed the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period. The Court emphasized that technicalities must not frustrate substantial justice. Dismissing an appeal based on post-approval, unauthorized alterations—which made a timely appeal appear tardy—would elevate procedural technicality over the right to appeal. The ruling is consistent with precedents holding that the approved record is controlling and mere printing errors are not grounds for dismissal. The Court ordered the Court of Appeals to reinstate the appeal and proceed to adjudicate it on the merits.