G.R. No. L-26922 and L-26923; March 21, 1968
EUFRACIO FAGTANAC and DOLORES ADVINCULA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MATILDE FALCIS and FEDERICO MENDOZA, respondents.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Capiz rendered a joint decision on February 20, 1965, in a civil case for ownership and a land registration proceeding, ruling against private respondents Matilde Falcis and Federico Mendoza regarding Lots 2 and 3. Private respondents received the decision on March 6, 1965. On the same day, petitioners moved to correct the dispositive part regarding the location of the lots, which was granted on March 17. Private respondents received the correction order on March 25 and filed a motion for reconsideration of the amended decision on April 14, which was denied on May 8. They received the denial order on May 17. On May 18, 1965, private respondents filed their notice of appeal and appeal bond. On May 25, they filed two separate records on appeal. These were approved on July 7, 1965. On petitioners’ motion, the lower court ordered on September 22, 1965, that private respondents amend their record on appeal in the land registration case to include specific documents and a specification limiting the appeal’s scope. Private respondents received notice of this order on September 29, 1965, but took no action to comply. On January 3, 1966, petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute, but the trial court denied it on February 16, 1966, citing loss of jurisdiction. Petitioners then filed a motion to dismiss the appeals in the Court of Appeals on July 7, 1966, which was denied on September 16, 1966, and a motion for reconsideration was denied on November 2, 1966. The records on appeal were forwarded to the Court of Appeals only on July 25, 1966, and were received on July 27, 1966. The records on appeal lacked the required clerk’s certification of correctness and did not incorporate the amendments ordered by the lower court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the appeals of private respondents for failure to prosecute and for non-compliance with the Rules of Court regarding the amendment and certification of the records on appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. The appeals were ordered dismissed. The Court held that private respondents failed to prosecute their appeals with reasonable diligence. They did not comply with the lower court’s September 22, 1965, order to amend the record on appeal in the land registration case within the ten-day period prescribed by Section 7, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as no time was fixed in the order. Consequently, no amended record on appeal was ever presented or approved, rendering the record on appeal effectively non-existent. Furthermore, the records on appeal lacked the mandatory certification of correctness by the clerk of court as required by Section 10, Rule 41. The certification submitted was separate, dated later, and did not verify the correctness of all documents or the dates of filing and receipt. The duty to prosecute the appeal, including ensuring the completeness and transmittal of the record, rests on the appellant. Private respondents’ inaction for over three months after the order to amend, and their failure to secure proper certification, constituted a failure to prosecute. The Court emphasized that delays in litigation and disregard of duties under the Rules of Court would not be countenanced. The Court of Appeals’ refusal to dismiss the appeals under these circumstances amounted to a denial of justice to the appellees (petitioners).