G.R. No. L-39631 October 23, 1982
JESUSA LIQUIDO, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES TARCISIO ENSOMO and LEONIDA EDER, and SPOUSES ROMEO GILLO and TERESITA CABANA GILLO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, defendants in Civil Case No. 2107 before the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte, sought to appeal an adverse decision. The reglementary period to perfect their appeal expired on January 19, 1974. They filed a Notice of Appeal and a property Appeal Bond on January 11 and 19, respectively. On January 18, they filed a motion for a 15-day extension to submit their Record on Appeal, setting it for the court’s calendar on January 21. The presiding judge was out-of-town, and the motion remained unacted upon. Assuming the extension would be granted, petitioners filed their Record on Appeal on February 1, 1974, within the 15-day period they had requested. The trial court disallowed the appeal, ruling petitioners should not have assumed their motion would be granted and should have followed up on it. The court also noted petitioners’ failure to serve a copy of the Appeal Bond on respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in disallowing petitioners’ appeal for filing the Record on Appeal within a requested but unacted-upon extension period and for not serving a copy of the Appeal Bond.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged resolutions, adopting a liberal approach to perfecting appeals in meritorious cases. Regarding the Record on Appeal, while petitioners should not have presumed their motion for extension would be granted, they filed it within the original period and submitted the Record on Appeal within the extension they sought. The motion did not affect respondents’ substantive rights, as such an extension could be validly granted upon a timely application. The Court’s failure to act on the motion should not prejudice petitioners. Concerning the Appeal Bond, while Rule 41 requires service on the adverse party, this requirement is not jurisdictional. The bond was filed on time. The Court has consistently taken a liberal stance on technicalities related to appeal bonds and Records on Appeal where no substantive right of the adverse party is impaired and the interest of justice is served. The non-service did not prejudice respondents’ right to examine the bond. The trial court was directed to approve the Record on Appeal, examine the sufficiency of the bond, and give due course to the appeal.