G.R. No. L-38278 June 28, 1983
GREGORIO LOBETE, petitioner, vs. HON. CARLOS SUNDIAM, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXVIII, THE CHAIRMAN AND BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS, PHILIPPINES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gregorio Lobete, a USAFFE veteran, filed a complaint for payment of salary differentials under Republic Act No. 65 . The Court of First Instance initially ruled in his favor on June 30, 1972. However, upon the respondents’ motion for reconsideration, the court reversed itself and dismissed the case on February 21, 1973, holding that Lobete’s cause of action, which accrued in July 1957, had prescribed under the ten-year period in Article 1144 of the Civil Code, as the complaint was filed only in December 1971.
Lobete filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal on March 29, 1973. The court initially approved it but, upon respondents’ motion, reconsidered and ordered Lobete on May 26, 1973 to amend his record on appeal to include certain omitted pleadings and orders. Lobete received this order on May 30, 1973. He filed a supplemental record on appeal only on November 14, 1973, or five and a half months later. The trial court disapproved this supplemental filing on December 14, 1973 for being filed out of time and for non-compliance with its directive.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the record on appeal and dismissing the complaint, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The core legal logic is that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Lobete failed to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period. Under Section 7, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, when a trial court orders the amendment of a record on appeal without specifying a period, the appellant has ten days from receipt of the order to submit the amended record. Lobete received the order on May 30, 1973, making his deadline June 9, 1973. His filing on November 14, 1973 was grossly tardy. Consequently, the trial court correctly disapproved the record on appeal, as failure to amend within the prescribed time is a ground for dismissal of an appeal under the rules.
The Court emphasized that the writ of certiorari may not be used to remedy the loss of the right to appeal through a party’s own omission or oversight. Lobete’s lengthy arguments on the merits of his underlying claim for veterans’ benefits were irrelevant, as a petition for certiorari deals with jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion by a lower court, not the substantive correctness of a decision. Here, the trial court acted within its discretion in enforcing procedural rules. Lobete’s loss of his right to appeal was due solely to his own delay, not any abuse by the court. The petition was therefore dismissed.