G.R. No. L-27806. April 30, 1979.
FRANCISCO MANIPOL and LUCIA MANIPOL, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Francisco and Lucia Manipol, along with other defendants, were held liable in a tax collection case filed by the Republic. The trial court rendered judgment on September 8, 1965, a copy of which was received by counsel on October 1, 1965. After a motion for reconsideration was denied on November 10, 1965 (received November 27), the Manipols filed their Notice of Appeal, Appeal Bond, and Record on Appeal. The trial court initially approved the Record on Appeal on December 4, 1965. Upon the Republic’s motion citing deficiencies, the petitioners amended their Record on Appeal, which the trial court subsequently approved on January 15, 1966. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals.
While the appeal was pending, the Republic filed a motion to dismiss, supplemented by a claim that the Record on Appeal did not show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time, specifically arguing it failed to state when the Notice of Appeal was filed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on March 20, 1967, precisely for this failure of the Record on Appeal to show the timeliness of the appeal on its face, citing the strict rule in Gov’t. vs. Antonio. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals commit a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for the Record on Appeal’s failure to show on its face the timeliness of its perfection?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the appeal. The Court abandoned the rigid application of the rule requiring the Record on Appeal to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time. Recent jurisprudence had adopted a liberal construction of this material data rule, emphasizing that what is vital is that the appeal was actually perfected within the reglementary period. If this can be ascertained from the records, the deficiency is not fatal.
The Court held that the trial court’s order of January 15, 1966, approving the amended Record on Appeal, constituted a finding that the appeal was filed on time. The Republic did not impugn the correctness or veracity of this finding by the trial court. Therefore, the approval order was a substantial compliance with the rule. The appellate court’s dismissal, based solely on the facial deficiency of the Record on Appeal despite the trial court’s uncontested finding of timeliness, constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The procedural requirement is merely intended to allow the appellate court to determine jurisdiction, and it should not be used to defeat a timely appeal when its timeliness is evident from the records and confirmed by the trial court’s order.