AQUILINA SAN PEDRO, COSME SAN PEDRO, NORBERTO SAN PEDRO, FLORA SAN PEDRO, GREGORIA SAN PEDRO, FELICIDAD SAN PEDRO, GUILLERMO SAN PEDRO, RICARDO SAN PEDRO, NESTOR STA. MARIA, EME…

San Pedro versus Mamot

The Case

These are two appeals decided together because they present one common question of law. In the first, the San Pedro family asks the Supreme Court to set aside the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their appeal from a Bulacan court order that had denied their petition to review a land registration decree issued in favor of Alejandro Mamot. In the second, Fernando de Villa-Abrille asks the same relief after the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal from a Manila court judgment in a replevin suit brought by the government through the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The cases matter because they fix the settled rule on the material data rule: when the trial court itself declares the record on appeal to be in order and the appellee does not dispute that finding, the appellate court should rely on it and let the appeal proceed.

Procedural History

In the first case, the San Pedro petitioners received the adverse order of the Bulacan court of first instance on August 19, 1972. They filed their notice of appeal and appeal bond on September 12, 1972, and later filed their record on appeal on October 23, 1972. The trial court approved the record on appeal without objection from adverse counsel. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, where the petitioners filed their brief. The appellee instead moved to dismiss on the ground of noncompliance with the material data rule. The Court of Appeals granted the dismissal and denied reconsideration, despite the petitioners' invocation of the more liberal ruling in Berkenkotter versus Court of Appeals.

In the second case, de Villa-Abrille received the adverse judgment of the Manila court of first instance on May 26, 1972. After denial of his motion for reconsideration, he timely filed his notice of appeal and appeal bond on August 22, 1972, and filed his record on appeal on September 15, 1972. The trial court approved it without objection. Before the Court of Appeals, the appellee again moved to dismiss on the material data rule. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied reconsideration, again despite the invocation of Berkenkotter. Both dismissals came to the Supreme Court, which decided the two cases jointly.

Facts

The San Pedros had sought to review a land registration decree in favor of Alejandro Mamot on grounds of fraud, bad faith, and deceit. The Bulacan court dismissed their petition. They appealed, and the trial court approved their record on appeal in an order stating that there was no objection from counsel for the applicant and that the record was in order. The record was elevated to the Court of Appeals, but the appellee moved to dismiss for noncompliance with the material data rule.

De Villa-Abrille had been sued in replevin by the government at the instance of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which sought his garnished deposit in the Philippine Bank of Commerce. The Manila court ruled for the government. He appealed, and the trial court approved his record on appeal, finding it in order and noting no objection, and ordered the clerk to transmit the record to the Court of Appeals. The appellee moved to dismiss on the same ground.

In both cases, the trial court had expressly declared the record on appeal to be in order, and the adverse party had not impugned the correctness or veracity of that finding.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeals on the ground of noncompliance with the material data rule, despite the trial court's unopposed order approving the records on appeal as in order.
• Whether or not the appellate court may rely on the trial court's finding of timeliness and regularity of the appeal when that finding is not disputed by the adverse party.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the material data rule, provides:

Section 6. Record on appeal. — The record on appeal shall include the notice of appeal, the appeal bond, and the motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal, if any, and the orders granting the same, and such other matters as may be necessary to determine the timeliness of the appeal.

This rule is the basis of the appellees' motions to dismiss, and the Court construes it in light of its purpose.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the dismissals must be set aside. It relied on its consistent ruling, reaffirmed in Andaya versus Court of Appeals and Pimentel versus Court of Appeals, that omissions in the record on appeal do not warrant dismissal where the trial court finds and declares in its order of approval that the record was filed on time or within the reglementary period, or that it was in order, and the correctness, accuracy, or veracity of that finding is not impugned, questioned, or disputed by the adverse party. The appellate court may properly rely on the trial court's order of approval and determination of timeliness.

On the second issue, the Court explained the reason for the material data rule: to obviate and eliminate the waste of time that would be incurred by the appellate tribunal in requiring the lower court to forward the original record and in examining it to determine timeliness. Where the trial court declares the record timely perfected or in order and that finding is not disputed, the reason for the rule ceases, because the appellate court can rely on it without sending for the original records. Since there was no pretense that the appeals were frivolous or manifestly dilatory, the right to appeal must be upheld.

Doctrine

The material data rule is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to spare the appellate court the burden of examining the original records to determine timeliness. When the trial court's order approving the record on appeal declares it in order or timely filed, and the adverse party does not dispute the correctness or veracity of that finding, the appellate court should rely on the order and allow the appeal to take its due course. The right to appeal is upheld absent a showing that the appeal is frivolous or manifestly dilatory.

Disposition

The Court set aside the Court of Appeals' dismissal orders and remanded both cases to that court for proper proceedings and prompt disposition of the appeals on the merits, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: where the trial court's unopposed order approves the record on appeal as in order, the appellate court should rely on it and let the appeal proceed. Examiners use this case to test the material data rule and the policy favoring the right to appeal over rigid technical dismissal.