G.R. No. L-30345 March 27, 1974
THELMA TANALEGA and FERNANDO ROMAN, petitioners, vs. HON. TITO V. TIZON, as Presiding Judge of the CFI of Bataan; ANTONIO DELGADO and NELLIE C. DELGADO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the Delgado spouses, sued petitioners Tanalega and Roman in the Court of First Instance of Bataan. The respondent judge rendered a decision on July 16, 1968, declaring the Delgados as the lawful owners of a disputed lot and ordering the cancellation of the petitioners’ title. Petitioners received a copy of the decision on July 23, 1968. They filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in an order dated November 11, 1968, received by petitioners on November 16, 1968. On November 22, 1968, petitioners filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a motion for a 15-day extension from November 29 to file their record on appeal. The judge granted the extension on November 26, 1968. Petitioners filed their record on appeal on December 5, 1968, within the extended period.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in disapproving the petitioners’ record on appeal for failing to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, revoking the respondent judge’s orders. The legal logic is clear: the mandatory requirement under Section 6, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court—that the record on appeal must include data showing the appeal was perfected on time—is principally intended for the benefit of the appellate court. This rule allows the appellate court, which does not have the trial court’s complete records, to determine timeliness speedily. However, this requirement may not be invoked by a trial court, which retains the original records and has the full capability to verify the actual dates of filing from its own docket. The trial judge, therefore, committed a grave abuse of discretion by disapproving the record on appeal based on a facial deficiency when he could have easily ascertained from his own records that the appeal was timely perfected, as the record on appeal was filed within the court-granted extension. The Court emphasized that a tribunal may take judicial notice of its own acts and records in a pending litigation. The proper course for the respondent judge was not to disapprove the record on appeal outright but, under Section 7 of Rule 41, to direct its amendment to include the necessary omitted data, such as the motion for extension and the order granting it. The orders were set aside, and the judge was directed to require an amended record on appeal.