G.R. No. L-61553. March 16, 1988.
PONCIANO ESMERIS, petitioner, vs. HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXI, Quezon City, and ROBERTO VISEY, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint for specific performance and damages filed by private respondent Roberto Visey against petitioner Ponciano Esmeris. The trial court rendered a decision adverse to Esmeris on October 30, 1980. Within the reglementary period, Esmeris filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a motion for extension to file a record on appeal, which was granted. He filed his record on appeal within the extended period. However, upon opposition from Visey, the respondent court issued an order on March 27, 1981, directing Esmeris to submit an amended record on appeal within twenty days from receipt. Esmeris, through counsel, received this order on April 16, 1981.
Esmeris filed his amended record on appeal only on August 31, 1981, which was over four months after receiving the court’s order to amend. Consequently, on January 18, 1982, the respondent court disapproved the amended record on appeal for being filed out of time, declaring that the judgment had become final and executory. Visey then filed a motion for execution, which the court granted on February 24, 1982, despite Esmeris’s opposition and motion for reconsideration. The court denied Esmeris’s motions for reconsideration on July 13, 1982, prompting the present petition for mandamus to compel the allowance of his appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the amended record on appeal and declaring the judgment final and executory, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus to allow the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic centers on the perfection of appeal and the finality of judgments. While procedural laws, such as Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and the Interim Rules which eliminated the general requirement for a record on appeal, are given retroactive application to pending actions, this retroactivity cannot revive an appeal that was never perfected. For an appeal to be perfected under the then-applicable rules, the appellant must file the required record on appeal within the prescribed period.
In this case, Esmeris failed to perfect his appeal. Although he timely filed his notice of appeal and initial record on appeal, the court ordered its amendment due to deficiencies. The amended record on appeal was filed more than four months after Esmeris received the order directing its submission within twenty days, far beyond the granted period. This delay meant the trial court’s decision had already attained finality when the amended record was belatedly filed. Consequently, the respondent court correctly disapproved the amended record on appeal and properly granted the motion for execution, as it had lost jurisdiction over the case. Mandamus does not lie to compel a discretionary act or to order the allowance of an appeal that was not perfected within the reglementary period. The petition, therefore, lacked merit.