GR L 28713; (May, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28713 May 31, 1972
SIMPLICIO A. PALANCA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK, as Administrator of the Testate Estate of C. N. Hodges, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Simplicio Palanca filed a complaint against PCIB, as administrator of the Hodges estate, seeking to nullify the extrajudicial rescission of certain contracts to sell real estate in Bacolod, for an accounting, and for damages. The defendant bank filed its answer with 201 counterclaims against Palanca to recover amounts from lot sales and damages. Palanca answered these counterclaims, and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss them on the grounds of no cause of action and splitting a cause of action. He argued the bank had already filed a cross-claim for the same cause in a separate case in Negros Occidental.
The trial court issued a single order denying the bank’s petition for a preliminary attachment and dismissing all 201 counterclaims. The bank moved for reconsideration and clarification, which was denied. The bank then filed its notice of appeal and record on appeal. Upon elevation, Palanca moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time, as it did not indicate when the order denying reconsideration was received.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure of the record on appeal to show on its face the timeliness of its perfection, as required by Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes, the appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the requirement under Section 6, Rule 41 is mandatory and jurisdictional. An appellate court acquires jurisdiction only if the appeal is perfected on time, and the record on appeal must contain data affirmatively proving such timeliness. In this case, the record on appeal did not show when the appellant bank received the order denying its motion for reconsideration. This omission made it impossible to determine from the face of the record whether the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period.
The Court rejected the bank’s argument that previous rulings in Dequito and Carillo had abandoned this strict doctrine, clarifying that those were labor cases decided under the constitutional policy of protection to labor and were not controlling for ordinary civil cases like the present one. Furthermore, the appellee’s failure to object to the record’s approval in the lower court does not create estoppel, as the jurisdictional defect can be raised at any stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal without needing to resolve the assigned errors regarding the dismissal of the counterclaims.