GR L 26227; (October, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26227-28 October 25, 1966
J. ANTONIO ARANETA, petitioner, vs. MADRIGAL & CO., INC., and THE HONORABLE JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, ANTONIO G. LUCERO, and ANGEL MOJICA, as members of the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner J. Antonio Araneta filed two civil cases for damages against respondent Madrigal & Co., Inc. in the Court of First Instance of Manila. After a joint hearing, the trial court rendered a decision ordering Madrigal to pay damages to Araneta. Madrigal appealed, and the appeals were docketed in the Court of Appeals. After the submission of the printed record on appeal and briefs, Araneta filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Madrigal’s records on appeal did not contain “such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time,” in violation of Rule 41, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Araneta then filed these original actions for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the Court of Appeals’ resolutions.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the appeal despite the record on appeal’s failure to include data showing the appeal was perfected on time, as mandatorily required by Rule 41, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petitions. The requirement under Rule 41, Section 6 that the record on appeal must include “such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time” is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply means the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction over the appealed case and has the power only to dismiss the appeal. The Court, citing its ruling in Government of the Philippines vs. Luis Antonio, held that the amendment to Rule 41, Section 6 was precisely designed to eliminate delays caused by disputes over the timeliness of appeals, which appellate courts could not verify without the trial court records. Allowing an appeal to proceed despite a deficient record on appeal would defeat this purpose. The Court rejected the argument that its ruling in Government vs. Antonio should not apply retroactively, noting that the amendment had been in force since January 1, 1964. Consequently, the Court set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals and directed it to dismiss Madrigal’s appeal.