GR L 7972; (February, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7972; January 24, 1955
JAI-ALAI CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH I, LUIS CHING KIAT BIEK, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Jai-Alai Corporation of the Philippines, filed a civil case (No. 7741) against respondents for damages due to breach and abandonment of a lease contract for bars and restaurants at the Jai-Alai Stadium. The trial court rendered judgment against the petitioner, ordering it to pay the respondents sums of money. The petitioner gave notice of appeal, filed an appeal bond, and submitted a 63-page Record on Appeal. The respondents opposed the approval of the Record on Appeal, objecting to the inclusion of 12 pleadings and orders on the ground that they were not necessary for the appeal. The respondent Court sustained the opposition and ordered the petitioner to exclude these pleadings. The petitioner sought reconsideration, which was denied. To avoid losing time for perfecting the appeal, the petitioner deleted the contested matters from the Record on Appeal but filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul the trial court’s orders and to direct approval of the original Record on Appeal in its entirety.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the exclusion of the 12 pleadings and orders from the petitioner’s Record on Appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the writs prayed for. It held that while trial courts have the authority to exclude immaterial and unnecessary matters from a record on appeal, they should exercise caution and be slow in doing so. The Court emphasized that matters which may initially appear irrelevant could become valuable during appellate argument, and their inclusion helps the reviewing tribunal to have all necessary materials for a just determination, avoiding possible remands or new trials. The Court found that the excluded pleadings were material and relevant to the appealed judgment, as they related to the contention that the contract (Exhibit K) was signed by the father of one respondent, which contradicted a finding of the trial court. These pleadings fell within the scope of Rule 41, section 6, which requires the inclusion of all pleadings and interlocutory orders relating to the appealed judgment. The fact that the orders resolving the motions were not appealed from was immaterial, as the rule requires inclusion of interlocutory orders if they relate to the issues on appeal. The respondent Court’s exclusion of these necessary matters constituted an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ordered the Court of First Instance of Manila to approve and forward the petitioner’s original Record on Appeal. Costs were imposed on the respondents.