G.R. No. L-55526, June 15, 1987
FILOIL REFINERY CORPORATION, PETROPHIL CORPORATION and FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA and HON. MARIANO A. ZOSA, in their capacity as Judge, Branch V, Court of First Instance of Cebu, JESUS P. GARCIA and SEVERINA B. GARCIA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the Garcias, filed a complaint for rescission of a lease contract over a lot in Cebu City against Filoil Refinery Corporation. The lower court rendered a decision on May 14, 1976, rescinding the contract and ordering petitioners to vacate, citing violations including unauthorized subleasing to Filoil Marketing and later Petrophil Corporation, and delays in rental payments. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within the reglementary periods. Private respondents moved for execution pending appeal, which was granted, prompting petitioners to file a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals challenging that execution.
Meanwhile, private respondents moved to dismiss the main appeal, alleging petitioners abandoned it by failing to amend their record on appeal to include two specific lower court orders and the motion for execution pending appeal. The lower court, without having previously issued any order declaring the record on appeal incomplete or directing its amendment, dismissed the appeal on September 24, 1979, for this alleged failure. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for failure to amend their record on appeal.

RULING

Yes, the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court clarified the procedural requirements for perfecting an appeal. Petitioners timely filed their record on appeal. Critically, the lower court never issued an order finding the record on appeal deficient or directing petitioners to amend or complete it. Without such a prior judicial order, petitioners were under no obligation to amend their submission; they were entitled to presume their record on appeal was regular and adequate. The lower court’s dismissal for non-compliance with a non-existent order was arbitrary.
The Court further noted petitioners’ plausible grounds for appeal, including the argument that the lease contract contained no express prohibition against sublease, making it permissible under Article 1650 of the Civil Code, and that the rental delays were minor and not a fundamental breach warranting rescission. However, the Court ultimately declared the entire case moot and academic. The lease contract, by its own terms, had already expired on September 16, 1982—nearly five years prior to the decision. Consequently, the rescission issue was rendered academic, and the petitioners were ordered to vacate the premises, not due to the merits of the rescission, but because the lease term had naturally concluded. The petition was dismissed.