GR L 37766; (October, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37766 October 27, 1983
ROGELIA, ROLANDO, LORNA, EVA, RAFAEL, EBENEZER EVANGELINE and YOLANDA, all surnamed PERARTILLA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS of GONZALO DE LA PEÑA, namely, ELSA P. CUADRA, LOURDES DE LA PENA, ANGELES DE LA PEÑA, COSETTE P. BERNABE, MARIO DE LA PENA and ANA NITA DE LA PEÑA, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, the Perartillas, filed an appeal from a trial court decision that allowed Gonzalo de la Peña to exercise a right of redemption as a co-owner. Their original record on appeal was filed within the 30-day reglementary period on December 29, 1970. Subsequently, a motion for execution pending appeal filed by De la Peña necessitated an amendment to this record. The petitioners claimed they were not served a copy of the trial court’s order denying that motion, dated January 23, 1971, and only learned of it over a year later on April 7, 1972. They promptly submitted an amended record on appeal on April 12, 1972.
The trial court, in an order dated September 2, 1972, required further amendments and granted an extension until September 23, 1972. The court later approved the petitioners’ second amended record on appeal on November 4, 1972, without any objection from the opposing party. The record was then elevated to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal on the ground that their printed amended record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time, in compliance with the material data rule under the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding it erroneous. The Court acknowledged that the material data rule (Section 6, Rule 41) had been construed as mandatory and jurisdictional. However, subsequent jurisprudence had relaxed its application. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s approval of the record on appeal carries great weight, as no responsible judge would approve a record that was not timely filed.
The legal logic centers on the relation back of the amended record to the original, timely filing. Since the original record on appeal was unquestionably filed within the reglementary period, the subsequent amendments—even those made more than a year later—are deemed to have been filed on the date the original was presented. The Court cited the doctrine in Diola vs. Court of Appeals, which states that an amended record on appeal is considered filed as of the date the original was filed, provided the original was timely. Therefore, the perfection of the appeal was anchored on the timely original filing, and the amendments did not negate this timeliness. The Court directed the Intermediate Appellate Court to give due course to the appeal.