G.R. No. L-38344 November 29, 1976
GREGORIO V. PAJARILLO and ROSA O. DE PAJARILLO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND PROCESO J. AREVALO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners received a copy of the trial court’s Order dated February 9, 1973, on February 16, 1973. They timely filed their Notice of Appeal, Cash Appeal Bond, and original Record on Appeal on February 22, 1973. The trial court, however, found the original Record on Appeal incomplete and issued an Order on May 14, 1973, directing petitioners to amend it. Petitioners received this Order on May 31, 1973. Their new counsel filed a motion on June 4, 1973, requesting a thirty-day extension from May 31 to file an Amended Record on Appeal. Petitioners filed the Amended Record on Appeal on June 21, 1973, within the requested extension period. The trial court approved this Amended Record on Appeal on July 14, 1973, noting it was in the interest of justice. Private respondent did not object to its approval.
After petitioners filed their printed Amended Record on Appeal with the Court of Appeals, private respondent moved to dismiss the appeal for alleged non-compliance with the material data rule. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the Amended Record on Appeal did not show it was filed on June 21, 1973, and that since the trial court’s order did not specify a period for amendment, petitioners only had ten days from notice (until June 10, 1973) to file it. The appellate court held the motion for extension was irrelevant as its granting could not be relied upon, thus deeming the June 21 filing late.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the Amended Record on Appeal was not timely filed and failed to show the material date of its filing on its face.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on established jurisprudence regarding the perfection of appeals and the amendment of records on appeal. First, an amended record on appeal is deemed filed as of the date the original record on appeal was presented, provided the original was filed within the reglementary period. Here, the original Record on Appeal was filed on February 22, 1973, well within the 30-day period from notice of the February 9 Order, thus perfecting the appeal at that point.
Second, the Amended Record on Appeal was itself filed on June 21, 1973, within the 30-day extension period petitioners requested from May 31, 1973. The trial court’s approval of the Amended Record on Appeal on July 14, 1973, without objection from the adverse party, carried with it the implied approval of the motion for extension. The absence of a formal order granting the extension is not fatal where the record on appeal filed within the requested period is subsequently approved by the trial court. The approval is a positive act from which it can be inferred that the court deemed the filing timely. The failure of the printed Amended Record on Appeal to explicitly state the filing date of June 21 on its face is a formal, not a jurisdictional, defect, especially since the fact of its filing on that date and receipt by private respondent on June 23 is undisputed. The right to appeal should not be forfeited on mere technicalities. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings on the merits.