PAN AMERICANWORLD AIRWAYS, INC., PETITIONER VS. TOMAS M. ESPIRITU AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Pan American World Airways versus Espiritu

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Pan American World Airways against Tomas M. Espiritu and the Court of Appeals. Pan American asks the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court's orders dismissing its appeal for failure of the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time. The case matters because it is the Court's classic statement that procedural rules on perfecting an appeal are tools of justice, not traps for the unwary, and that a meritorious appeal should not be lost on a pure technicality.

Procedural History

Espiritu sued Pan American and the Manila International Airport Collector of Customs for damages, with a petition for preliminary mandatory injunction, before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court rendered judgment declaring the debarment order of the Collector of Customs illegal and without effect, and ordered Pan American to reinstate Espiritu and to pay his back salaries from suspension until actual reinstatement. Pan American appealed to the Court of Appeals. Espiritu moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record on appeal did not show on its face that it was filed on time. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, and later denied Pan American's motion for reconsideration. Pan American then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

On March 3, 1967, several cargoes arrived at the Manila International Airport from Hongkong for transshipment to Guam. Among them were two trunks consigned to a party in Agana, Guam. These trunks were manifested but were not deposited inside Pan American's bodega; they were allegedly left outside, from where they disappeared. The Customs Patrol Division investigated, and one of those investigated was Tomas M. Espiritu, then the Mail and Cargo Service Supervisor of Pan American. On the recommendation of the Customs Police Division, several persons, Espiritu among them, were criminally charged by the Bureau of Customs with violation of the Tariff and Customs Code on more than sixty counts. Meanwhile, the Collector of Customs barred Espiritu from restricted areas at the airport and prohibited him from transacting business with the Airport Customshouse as Pan American's representative. Because of this inhibition, Pan American suspended him, and later terminated his services.

The criminal complaint against Espiritu was dismissed by the City Fiscal of Pasay City for lack of sufficient evidence. But the Collector of Customs refused to lift the order of exclusion, and on his advice Pan American terminated Espiritu's services. Espiritu then filed the action for damages with preliminary mandatory injunction. The trial court ruled in his favor, and Pan American appealed.

The chronology of the appeal is the heart of the case. Pan American received the trial court's decision on May 16, 1970. It filed a motion for reconsideration on June 9, 1970, which suspended the thirty-day period, leaving six days. It received the order denying the motion on July 16, 1970, so the period ran again, with July 22, 1970 as the last day. On July 21, 1970, Pan American filed its notice of appeal and appeal bond, and on July 22, 1970, its record on appeal. The trial court later required amendments, which Pan American made within the periods given. On January 18, 1971, the trial court issued a further order directing Pan American to include a specified pleading, and declaring that upon compliance the amended record on appeal should be considered approved. Pan American filed the required pleading on February 3, 1971, even before it received the order on February 6, 1971. The Clerk of Court then transmitted the record to the Court of Appeals on April 12, 1971. Only on April 21, 1972, more than a year later, did Espiritu move to dismiss the appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal of Pan American was perfected on time within the period fixed by the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the record on appeal substantially complied with the requirement that it show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time.
• Whether or not the appellate court should relax the rule and consider the merits of the appeal rather than dismiss it on a pure technicality.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, on the contents of the record on appeal, provides:

The record on appeal shall include the order of approval of the record on appeal.

This is the provision the Court construes when it holds that the order of January 18, 1971, which approved the record upon compliance, formed part of the record and supplied the missing showing of timeliness.

Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, on grounds for dismissal of appeals, provides:

Failure of the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time is a ground for dismissal of the appeal.

This is the very ground on which the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, and which the Supreme Court refuses to apply rigidly.

Section 7 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, on the approval of the record on appeal, provides:

The record on appeal shall be approved by the court and transmitted to the appellate court.

The Court uses this to appreciate that Espiritu raised no objection to the order of January 18, 1971, and so had no legal ground to object later to the final approval and transmittal of the record.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that Pan American filed its appeal within the thirty-day period. The notice of appeal and appeal bond were filed on July 21, 1970, and the record on appeal on July 22, 1970, the last day. The subsequent amendments were made within the periods fixed by the trial court. The appeal was therefore perfected on time.

On the second issue, the Court holds that there was substantial compliance with the requirement that the record show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time. The record stated the date of receipt of the October 8, 1970 order and the date of filing of the amended record. It also included the order of January 18, 1971, which for all purposes was the order of approval. The Court stresses that the express findings of the trial judge and the certification of the clerk of court as to the time of filing prevail over what is printed or omitted in the record on appeal. The Clerk of Court would not have transmitted the record had there been no compliance, for that would have contravened the order and Section 11 of Rule 41.

On the third issue, the Court holds that the rule should be relaxed where a rigid application would work injustice. It quotes its own doctrine:

A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits.

The Court adds that the rules should not be interpreted to sacrifice the substantial right of the appellant on the altar of technicalities. It also notes that Espiritu's motion to dismiss came more than a year after transmittal, and that the appeal is not dilatory but involves basic principles of the employer-employee relationship, including loss of trust and confidence, which deserve to be ventilated. An acquittal in a criminal case based on reasonable doubt does not erase the employee's dismissal.

Doctrine

First, an appeal is perfected on time when the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal are filed within the reglementary period, and amendments ordered by the trial court are made within the periods fixed. Second, substantial compliance with the requirement that the record on appeal show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time is sufficient; the findings of the trial judge and the certification of the clerk of court prevail over omissions in the printed record. Third, the ground for dismissal under Section 1 of Rule 50 is not absolute; where a rigid application would defeat justice and the appeal is meritorious, the Court will relax the rule. Fourth, an acquittal in a criminal case based on reasonable doubt does not bar dismissal of an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated Pan American's appeal, giving it due course.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a litigation is not a game of technicalities, and the rules of procedure must not be used to defeat the substantial rights of a litigant. Examiners use this case on the perfection of appeals, substantial compliance with the record on appeal, and the relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice.