G.R. No. L-32909 July 29, 1988
CANADIAN PACIFIC AIR LINES, LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DRA. RIZALINA LLANES-RODAS and CIPRIANO RODAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Canadian Pacific Air Lines was held liable by the trial court for damages amounting to P215,674.01 to private respondent Dra. Rizalina Llanes-Rodas for the loss of her luggage during an international flight. The last day to perfect an appeal was January 4, 1969. While a notice of appeal and appeal bond were filed on time, the record on appeal was not. A motion for extension to file the record on appeal, prepared on the deadline, was only filed on January 15, 1969, together with the record on appeal itself. The trial court dismissed the appeal for late filing. Petitioner then filed a petition for relief from this order, which was denied. Petitioner subsequently filed a new notice of appeal, bond, and record on appeal, which the trial court also denied. Petitioner sought mandamus from the Court of Appeals to compel approval of its record on appeal and to give due course to its appeal, but the appellate court dismissed the petition, finding petitioner’s counsel grossly negligent for the procedural lapse.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in denying the petition for mandamus, thereby depriving the petitioner of its right to appeal?

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the challenged orders and directing the trial court to give due course to the appeal. The legal logic is anchored on two key points. First, under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, a judgment denying a petition for relief under Rule 38 is itself a final order subject to appeal. In the course of that appeal, a party may also assail the merits of the main judgment. Therefore, the petitioner retained a right to appeal the denial of its petition for relief, which encompassed a review of the underlying damage award. Second, the Court applied procedural rules retroactively to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the damages awarded were substantial and that under the then-recent Judiciary Reorganization Act (B.P. Blg. 129), a record on appeal was no longer required for perfecting appeals in such cases. This new rule had been given retroactive effect in prior jurisprudence. Considering the significant amount involved and the prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court resolved to relax procedural strictness to allow a review on the merits, emphasizing that the right to appeal should not be forfeited solely due to counsel’s negligence under these circumstances.