GR L 22626; (September, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22626; September 28, 1964
ALICE FOLEY VDA. DE MARCELO B. PERALTA, WILLIAM, RUTH and JANET PERALTA, petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE RAFAEL S. SISON of Court of First Instance of Cam. Sur, Branch IV, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, which was dismissed via judgment on the pleadings, with the court also ordering them to pay damages and costs. They subsequently appealed and tendered a record of appeal to the trial court. The private respondents objected to this record on specific procedural grounds, namely that the caption failed to state the full names of all parties, omitted the filing dates of various pleadings, and lacked a subject index despite exceeding seventy pages.
The trial court sustained the objections and directed the petitioners to amend the record. Despite being granted three extensions of time and submitting amended and re-amended versions, the petitioners failed to cure the cited deficiencies. The record of appeal, as finally tendered, still did not contain the full party names in the caption or a required subject index. Consequently, the trial court rejected the record and refused to approve or certify it for appeal, prompting the petitioners to file this mandamus action to compel such approval.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion or unlawfully neglected its duty in refusing to approve and certify the petitioners’ record of appeal due to its failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the trial court’s refusal to approve the record of appeal was legally correct and not a proper subject for mandamus, which only lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. The petitioners’ record of appeal violated the explicit mandates of Section 6, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, which requires the caption to state the full names of all parties and mandates a subject index for any record exceeding twenty pages. These are not mere technicalities but mandatory requirements for the perfection of an appeal.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the respondents waived their objections by not reiterating them within ten days after an amended record was filed. Even assuming such a waiver by the opposing party, the trial court retains the inherent authority and duty, acting motu proprio, to reject a record of appeal that does not conform to the Rules. The approval of a record on appeal is not a purely ministerial act if the record is patently deficient; the court exercises discretion in ensuring compliance with procedural rules. Since the petitioners persistently failed to correct the defects despite opportunities given, the trial court correctly refused certification. The writ of mandamus cannot be used to compel an act involving discretion or to approve a defective record.