GR L 37068; (July, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37068. July 18, 1974.
EULALIA ALFONSO and MARIO MABABANGLOOB, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AMADO C. DIZON and PACIENCIA DIZON, respondents.
FACTS
The Rizal Court of First Instance rendered a decision on June 26, 1972, recognizing petitioners’ ownership of a residential lot but declaring private respondents as owners of a house built thereon. Petitioners, dissatisfied with the award of the house, timely filed a notice of appeal, a record on appeal, and an appeal bond in postal money order on December 29, 1972. The trial court approved the record on appeal on January 26, 1973, without objection from respondents. Petitioners subsequently filed a printed record on appeal with the Court of Appeals.
Private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the printed record on appeal failed to show the timely filing of the appeal bond as required by Rule 41, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the printed record on appeal contained no averment regarding the appeal bond’s filing.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal based solely on the printed record on appeal’s omission of the appeal bond filing, despite evidence of its timely filing in the original record.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal. The legal logic centers on the doctrine of substantial compliance with the material data rule under Rule 41, Section 6. The rule’s objective is to enable the appellate court to determine from the record on appeal whether the appeal was perfected on time. This determination is not confined to the printed record on appeal but extends to the original record on appeal as filed with the trial court and forwarded to the appellate court.
Here, while the printed record on appeal inadvertently omitted mention of the appeal bond, the original typewritten record on appeal and notice of appeal on file with the Court of Appeals, upon verification, clearly showed on their face the postal money order details and registry receipts dated December 29, 1972, proving the bond’s timely filing. The Court, citing Ever Ice Drop Factory vs. Court of Appeals and Design Masters vs. Court of Appeals, held that the appellate court should have examined the original record to ascertain the material dates. Since the fact of timely filing was evident from the original documents, there was substantial, if not literal, compliance with the rule. The dismissal, based on a rigid and formalistic reading of the printed record, was therefore erroneous. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings on the merits.