GR L 26387; (September, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26387 September 27, 1966
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellant, vs. SPOUSES ADRIANO V. SANTOS and MARTINA HABACON and EVARISTO PICAZO, defendants. EVARISTO PICAZO, defendant and appellee.
FACTS
The Development Bank of the Philippines (appellant) appealed an order dated February 11, 1966, dismissing the case against appellee Evaristo Picazo. The record on appeal showed that appellant received the dismissal order on March 16, 1966, filed a motion for reconsideration on March 23, 1966, and that said motion was denied by the lower court in an order dated April 11, 1966. However, the record on appeal failed to state the date when appellant received notice of the order denying its motion for reconsideration. The record also showed that appellant filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond on April 20, 1966, and an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to file the record on appeal on April 25, 1966, but did not show that this motion was granted or the date appellant received the granting order. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was taken within the period fixed by the Revised Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal should be dismissed because the record on appeal fails to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time, specifically by omitting the date of receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration.
RULING
Yes, the appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that Rule 41, Section 6 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that the record on appeal must include “such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time.” This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. Since the appellant has exclusive knowledge of the date it received notice of the order denying its motion for reconsideration, it bears the burden of including this data in the record on appeal to demonstrate timeliness. The omission is fatal because, without it, it is impossible to determine from the face of the record whether the appeal was filed within the reglementary period. The certification of the record on appeal by the trial court cannot cure this jurisdictional defect. The Court applied its precedent in Government of the Philippines vs. Luis Antonio, et al. (G.R. No. L-23736).