G.R. No. L-18043; May 31, 1963
NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City and CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, respondents.

FACTS

The City of Zamboanga filed a complaint against the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) in the Court of First Instance, alleging that Republic Act No. 1383 , which transferred the city’s waterworks system assets to NAWASA without payment, was unconstitutional. The city sought the return of its properties or payment of just compensation. The trial court, invoking a prior Supreme Court ruling that declared the relevant provisions of RA 1383 unconstitutional, ordered NAWASA to surrender and return all properties and assets to the city and to render an accounting.
NAWASA filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal. The respondent judge, however, issued an order withholding the allowance of the record on appeal. The court required NAWASA to first incorporate into the record its earlier “urgent motion for extension of time to file memorandum” and the subsequent “memorandum” itself. NAWASA moved for reconsideration, arguing that these pleadings were not required to be included under the Rules of Court. The trial court denied the motion, insisting on their incorporation, prompting NAWASA to elevate the matter via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

The sole legal issue is whether a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum and the memorandum itself are required to be incorporated in a record on appeal before it can be allowed by the trial court.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of NAWASA, setting aside the trial court’s order and directing the allowance of the record on appeal. The Court’s decision was grounded on a strict interpretation of Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which governs the contents of a record on appeal. The rule mandates that the record “shall include the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken, and, in chronological order, copies of all pleadings, petitions, motions and all interlocutory orders relating to the appealed order or judgment.”
The legal logic is clear: the purpose of a record on appeal is to present the essential facts and proceedings necessary for the appellate court to review the specific order or judgment being appealed. Citing Aliño vs. Villamor, the Court emphasized that the record should contain only facts, not arguments of counsel. A memorandum is defined as a formal written summary of a party’s legal arguments on the issues involved in the litigation. As such, it is considered merely argumentative and not a factual pleading or proceeding that relates to the appealed order within the meaning of the rule. Consequently, the failure to include such a memorandum or a motion for its extension is not a lawful ground for disallowing the record on appeal. The trial court therefore erred in withholding approval on this basis.