G.R. No. L-68043 October 31, 1984
Palomo Building Tenants Association, Inc., et al. vs. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a civil case for Declaration of Nullity of Sale and Damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint on October 14, 1982. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal in November 1982. The RTC, finding the record on appeal non-conforming, ordered its amendment within ten days from January 4, 1983. Petitioners moved for a seven-day extension, which the court denied without their knowledge. They filed the amended record on appeal on January 21, 1983, beyond the original period. The RTC consequently refused to approve it.
Petitioners sought mandamus from the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) to compel approval. The IAC dismissed the petition, ruling the amended record on appeal was filed out of time and its approval was discretionary. The IAC held the appeal was governed by Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, requiring perfection within the prescribed period.

ISSUE

Did the Intermediate Appellate Court err in refusing to apply Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) retroactively to dispense with the requirement of a record on appeal for petitioners’ appeal?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the IAC decision. The Court applied Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and the Interim Rules of January 11, 1983, which dispensed with the requirement of a record on appeal for appeals to the IAC. Following the precedent in Alday vs. Camilon, these procedural rules are retroactive. Procedural statutes are construed to apply to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, as established in People vs. Sumilang. Since the judicial reorganization was complete and the law in effect, the technical defect of a late-filed amended record on appeal was rendered moot. The law’s retroactive application benefits petitioners. The RTC was ordered to forward the entire records to the IAC for a merits review.