EULALIA ALFONSO AND MARIO MABABANGLOOB, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AMADO C. DIZON AND PACIENCIA DIZON, RESPONDENTS.

Alfonso versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition filed by Eulalia Alfonso and Mario Mababangloob against the Court of Appeals and the spouses Amado and Paciencia Dizon, arising from the appellate court's dismissal of the petitioners' appeal in a civil case over a residential lot and the house built upon it. The petitioners had won recognition of their ownership of the lot but lost the house to the private respondents in the trial court, and they appealed that adverse portion of the judgment. The Court of Appeals threw out the appeal on a technical ground: the printed record on appeal did not show that an appeal bond had been filed on time. The case matters because it fixes the rule that the timeliness of an appeal is judged from the original record on appeal filed in the trial court, not from the printed record, and that substantial compliance with the material data rule suffices.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which rendered a decision on June 26, 1972 upon a partial stipulation of facts and after trial. The trial court recognized the petitioners' ownership of the residential lot but declared the private respondents the owners of the house under litigation, which was partly built on the petitioners' lot, and ordered the respondents to pay the petitioners 37 pesos and 50 centavos monthly from May 15, 1964 until the removal of the house. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied by an order received on December 28, 1972. On December 29, 1972, the petitioners filed their notice of appeal, their record on appeal, and their appeal bond in postal money order. The trial court approved the record on appeal at the hearing of January 26, 1973, without any written or verbal objection from the respondents despite due notice. The petitioners paid the appellate court's docket fee on March 30, 1973 and filed their printed record on appeal on April 25, 1973. On May 14, 1973, the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the record on appeal did not contain data showing that the appeal was perfected on time. The Court of Appeals, by resolution of June 6, 1973, dismissed the appeal, and it denied reconsideration. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court, which treated the petition as a special civil action in view of the simple issue involved and to expedite its determination. The Court required the respondent court to verify whether the appeal bond had actually been filed with the trial court on December 29, 1972, and the respondent court's compliance confirmed that the fact of filing appeared on the face of the original typewritten record on appeal and notice of appeal on file with it.

Facts

The petitioners acquired the residential lot involved at a public auction on May 15, 1964. A house stood partly on that lot, and the private respondents claimed it. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Rizal recognized the petitioners' ownership of the lot but awarded the house to the private respondents, ordering them to pay the petitioners 37 pesos and 50 centavos monthly from May 15, 1964 until the house was removed.

Dissatisfied with the award of the house to the respondents, the petitioners decided to appeal. On December 29, 1972, well within the thirty-day reglementary period, they filed with the trial court their notice of appeal, their record on appeal, and their appeal bond in Philippine Postal Money Order in the sum of 120 pesos and 60 centavos. The material dates all appeared on the face of the original record on appeal, except the fact of the filing of the appeal bond, which was not incorporated in the printed record. The trial court approved the record on appeal on January 26, 1973, without objection from the respondents.

The petitioners paid the docket fee and filed their printed record on appeal in the appellate court. The respondents then moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record on appeal did not show that the appeal was perfected on time. The Court of Appeals granted the dismissal, and the petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the printed record on appeal did not show the timely filing of the appeal bond.
• Whether or not the timeliness of the filing of the appeal bond may be determined from the original record on appeal on file with the appellate court, rather than from the printed record on appeal.
• Whether or not the petitioners substantially complied with the material data rule of the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 6. Record on appeal. The record on appeal shall include the notice of appeal, the pleadings, the evidence, and such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time.

This provision is the material data rule invoked by the respondents, and the whole case turns on whether the petitioners complied with it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. The dismissal rested solely on the absence from the printed record on appeal of any averment that an appeal bond had been filed within the reglementary period. But the Court found that the fact of timely filing was shown on the face of the original notice of appeal and the original record on appeal, as verified by the respondent court itself.

On the second issue, the Court held that the timeliness of the appeal is to be determined from the original record on appeal filed with the trial court and forwarded to the appellate court, not from the printed record on appeal with its inadvertent errors and omissions. The Court relied on its earlier rulings in Design Masters versus Court of Appeals and Ever Ice Drop Factory versus Court of Appeals, where the printed record omitted the notice of appeal and the official payment of the appeal bond, but the original record on file with the appellate court bore out the appellants' contention. The Court quoted with approval the rule that the provision obviously refers to the record on appeal filed with the trial court, not to the record on appeal printed in the appellate court, and that the appellate court is in a position to determine the date by examining the original record on appeal forwarded to it and forming part of its own records.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was manifestly substantial, if not literal, compliance with the material data rule. The original notice of appeal and the original record on appeal were both timely filed on the same day, and the respondent court's verification confirmed the postal money order, the amount paid, and the registry receipts stamped by the post office on December 29, 1972. The Court noted that the clerk of the lower court had obviously failed to indicate the exact date on the face of the postal money order, but that this clerical omission could not be charged against the petitioners.

Doctrine

The rule a Bar candidate must retain is this: the material data rule of Section 6 of Rule 41 is satisfied by substantial compliance, and the timeliness of an appeal is determined from the original record on appeal filed with the trial court and forwarded to the appellate court, not from the printed record on appeal. The printed record is a reproduction, and inadvertent errors or omissions in printing cannot defeat a right of appeal that the original records plainly establish. Where the original notice of appeal and the original record on appeal show on their face that the notice of appeal, the appeal bond, and the record on appeal were filed within the reglementary period, the appellate court may not dismiss the appeal on the ground that the printed record does not contain such data. The doctrine is tied to Section 6 of Rule 41, which requires such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time, and the Court reads that requirement in the light of the original record, not the printed copy.

Disposition

The Court annulled and set aside the Court of Appeals' resolution dismissing the appeal and directed the appellate court to proceed with the determination of the petitioners' appeal on its merits after the filing of the parties' respective briefs. The petitioners won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the timeliness of an appeal is judged from the original record on appeal, not the printed record, and substantial compliance with the material data rule suffices. Examiners like to use this case in civil procedure questions on perfection of appeals, the contents of the record on appeal, and the distinction between the original and the printed record on appeal.