GUADALUPE DE GUIA, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR., HONORABLE EULOGIO SERRANO, AND HON. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF TH…

Petitioner’s appeal from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan was, on December, 1970, dismissed by the Court of Appeals upon motion
of respondents-appellees claiming that the Record on
Appeal did not comply with Sections 5, 7 and 9 of Rule 41 of the 1964 Revised
Rules of Court, in that the Record on Appeal did not contain sufficient data to
show that the appeal was perfected in due time. 
Specifically respondents-appellees pointed out
to the Court of Appeals that herein petitioner-appellant’s Record on Appeal (a)
did not contain copy of the order of the trial court denying petitioner’s
motion for a new trial; (b) contained no mention of the filing of the appeal
bond nor of the date the bond was filed; and (c) did not contain copy of the
order approving the record on appeal.

The appellate court having refused to reconsider the dismissal of
the appeal, petitioner resorted to this Court on certiorari, averring
abuse of discretion.

The dismissal of the appeal must be sustained.  Since 1964, when the Revised Rules of Court
became operative, Section 6 of Revised Rule 41 (governing appeals from the
Courts of First Instance to the Court of Appeals) explicitly prescribes that
the record on appeal –

“shall include the order or
judgment from which the appeal is taken and, in chronological order, copies
of only such pleadings, petitions, motions and interlocutory orders as are
related to the appealed order or judgment from and necessary for the proper
understanding of the issue involved, together with such data as will show
that the appeal was perfected in time.” (Emphasis supplied)

Since
the record on appeal of petitioner is bereft of any mention or reference to the
filing of the appeal bond, that under Section 3 of the same Rule 41 (“How
Appeal is taken”) must be filed with the trial court within 30 days from
notice of the order or judgment appealed from (deducting the time during which
a motion to set aside or for new trial
has been pending), it is evident that the record on appeal submitted by
appellant does not show on its face the timely perfection of the appeal and
does not comply with Section 6, Rule 41, aforementioned.  Incontestably, the Court of Appeals acted
correctly in dismissing the appeal.  Time
and again since 1965 has this court ruled that non-compliance with the
requirements of Section 6 of Rule 41 justifies the dismissal of the appeal; and
with particular regard to the omission of the date on which the appeal bond was
filed, our ruling in Reyes vs. Carrasco and Court of Appeals, G. R. No.
L-28782, promulgated 31 March 1971, is squarely in point, and analyzes the
jurisprudence on the matter, which would be superfluous to restate here.

This Court notes with regret that although these requirements on
the contents of a record on appeal have been in effect since 1964, there are
still lawyers and litigants who do not comply with the same:  either they have not perused the Revised
Rules, or choose not to comply therewith. 
Liberality in this regard is by now unwarranted, and would be unjust to
numerous litigants or counsel who exercise diligence in observing the Rules of
Court.

It avails nothing to herein petitioner that she now attaches to
her petition copy of the Clerk of Court’s receipt for her appeal bond dated 17 October 1969 within the appeal
period.  This belated effort can not cure
the patent omission of the fact in her record on appeal.  For the rule
in question was adopted precisely to obviate such side inquiries, that a strict
observance of Rule 41 would have made unnecessary, and would have enabled
appellate courts to proceed to examine the merits of the appeal without
loss of time.  It was precisely in answer
to the prevalent clamor against unnecessary delays in the dispatch of cases
that Rule 41, and others of similar nature, were promulgated, and strictly
enforced.

IN VIEW OF THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED, We deem it pointless
to discuss the other defects raised by respondents-appellees.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied, with
costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro and Dizon, JJ., on official leave.