THE SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO R. SANTOS, ET AL., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is a direct appeal on a
question of law from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in
its Civil Case No. 47564.

The record on appeal exhibits
sizeable, substantial and important omissions in the findings of fact and even
in the dispositive portion of the appealed decision.
These omissions can be gleaned from the fact that the lower court’s findings of
fact appear incomplete and mixed-up with the rest of the dispositive portion and it cannot be made out where the
former ends and the latter begins. The omissions are made more conspicuous and
glaring by the lack, in the dispositive portion (or
what appears to be so), of a clause ” (a)”, although there is a clause “(b)”;
hence, a disposition under clause “(a)” was entirely omitted (Rec. on App., p.
30).

The aforesaid deficiencies occur
in the typewritten record on appeal that was transmitted to this Court and also
in the printed copies. They can not but be due to rank carelessness, to say the
least, in the preparation of the all important record of appeal, and cast doubt
upon the entire contents thereof.

The brief of the appellant,
Mutual Security Insurance Corporation, does contain a statement of facts whence
the alleged findings of fact of the lower court could possibly be deduced; but
the statement is contradicted in the brief of the appellee, the Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. Which
of the statements of facts — that of the appellant or that of the appellee — reflects the true findings of fact of the trial
court cannot be verified because of the aforesaid omissions in the copying of
the appealed decision in the record on appeal, so that there is no source, from
the record and the briefs submitted to this Court, from which to derive an
understanding as to what the omitted portion stated.

The result is that a ruling,
whatever it may be, on the legal issue involved cannot be sensibly made in the
case at bar. Any ruling would only be theoretical, without reliable basis.

While It is the duty of the clerk
of court of the trial court to verify the correctness of the copies of all
petitions, motions, pleadings, orders and decisions included in the record on
appeal (Section 10, Rule 41, Rules of Court), it is the primary responsibility
of appellant to see that the pleadings, decisions and orders are correctly
transcribed before the record is elevated to the appellate court, in order that
the latter may know, without resort to the originals, what the appeal and the
appealed decision are about.

Rule 50, section 1, of the
Revised Rules provides that an appeal may be dismissed on the ground, among
others, of –

“(e) Unauthorized alterations,
omissions or additions in the printed record on appeal;”

IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING,
the appeal is hereby dismissed. And the appeal being frivolous, as shown by the
carelessness with which the record of appeal was prepared, appellant shall pay
treble costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., on leave.