INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEREZ HONG, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review by certiorari
of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the appeal in CA-G.R.
No. 40816-R, and denying therein appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the
resolution of dismissal.  The facts and
issue in this case are simple and undisputed.

Perez Hong, a merchant engaged in
the buying and selling of rice and sugar sacks, filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila an action (Civil Case No. 60463) against the Industrial
Company, Inc., a manufacturer of jute bags or sacks, for recovery of the sum of
P114,752.50 allegedly representing deposit for, or advance payment of, sacks
which the defendant failed to deliver to the plaintiff, with legal interest
thereon from the date of default, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.  The defendant corporation accordingly filed
its answer, denying the material averments of the complaint.

On 17 July 1967, after the case
was duly heard, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, finding that
there had really been diversion or misdelivery, at
defendant’s fault, of certain shipments of jute sacks, the value of which were
improperly charged against the plaintiff’s money in defendant’s possession and
which amount was not returned to the former. 
Consequently, the defendant was ordered to pay to the plaintiff the
total sum of P118,752.50, attorneys’ fees in the amount of P3,000.00 and the
costs of the suit.  On 19 August 1967, the defendant filed an appeal bond and notice of its
intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals. 
On 24 October 1967, the trial court approved defendant’s record on
appeal, and directed the clerk of said court to elevate the record, together
with all the evidence, to the appellate court where the case was later docketed
as CA-G.R. No. 40816-R.  On 5 March 1968, the defendant-appellant filed its printed record on
appeal with the Court of Appeals, furnishing the plaintiff-appellee
with copies thereof.^[1]

On 18 July 1968, plaintiff-appellee filed
in the Court of Appeals a motion to dismiss the case, on the ground that the
record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was made on
time.  The motion was at first denied;
but on a motion for reconsideration, the prayer of appellee
(herein private respondent) was granted, and the case was dismissed by
resolution of the Court of Appeals of 19 Nov­ember 1968.  When the
appellate court denied the appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal-order, the latter came to this Tribunal by way of the present
petition for certiorari.

The controversy here centers on
the following averments in the record on appeal:

“13.  That on July 17, 1967, the Honorable Court
promulgated its decision, copy of which was received by the defendant on July
20, 1967, and which is hereto attached as Annex ‘M’;

“14.  That on August 19, 1967, defendant filed an appeal bond and a notice
of appeal copy of which is hereto attached as Annex ‘N’;

“15.  That on
the same date defendant moved for and was granted up to September 15, 1967, with­in which to file record
on appeal; this period was further extended to October 15, 1967;”

the record
on appeal having been admittedly filed on 14 October 1967.

Claiming that the above-quoted
allegations do not meet the requirement of Section 6 of Revised Rule 41, to
include in the record on appeal such data as would show that the appeal was per­fected
on time, respondent Perez Hong points out that no copy of petitioner’s motions
and of the alleged orders of the lower court, extending the period to file the
record on appeal until 15 October 1967, were included in the said record on
appeal.  Neither is there showing in the
same record on appeal, according to respondent, when the pe­titioner had
received the orders granting his motions for extension.  Hence, it is alleged that the filing of the
record on appeal on 14 October 1967 was made out of time. 
For his part, petitioner disputed the allega­tions and asserts that
there was compliance with the Rules in the case.

We sustain petitioner’s
contention.  Section 6 of Revised Rule 41
is clear:

“SEC. 6.  Record on Appeal; form and
contents thereof.  — The full names of all the parties to
the proceedings shall be stated in the caption of the record on appeal and it
shall include the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken, and, in
chronological order, copies of only such pleadings, petitions, motions and all
interlocutory orders as are related to the appealed order or judgment and
necessary for the proper understanding of the issue involved, together with
such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on
time.  x x x“

As thus
provided, the following things must appear and be included in the record on
appeal:  (1) the full names of all the
parties to the proceedings, to appear in its caption; (2) the order or judgment
from which the appeal is being taken; (3) copies of such pleadings,
petitions, motions and all interlocutory orders as are “related to the
appealed order or judgment and necessary for the proper understanding of the
issues involved”; and (4) such data as will show that the appeal was
perfected on time.

Considering that appellant’s
motions for extension of the period within which to file the record on appeal,
as well as the orders of the court granting the same, are neither related to
the judgment from which appeal is being taken, nor necessary to the proper
understanding of the issue or issues involved therein, there actually exists no
imperative necessity to incorporate copies thereof in the record on
appeal.  As regard this case, therefore,
it is enough, for purposes of the rule, that the record on appeal should
contain data or information by which the reviewing tribunal, without going into
the original records, may be apprised of the timeliness or untimeliness
of the appeal.  And this was
substantially satisfied when the defendant (herein petitioner) re­cited in the
record on appeal that he was notified of the decision being appealed on 20 July
1967; that the notice of appeal and appeal bond were filed on 19 August 1967; that at his instance, the period to file
the record on appeal was extended by the lower court — first, up to 15
September 1967, and again, until 15 October 1967; that the record on appeal was
actually presented on 14 October 1967^[2], or before the extended period therefor
had expired.  By such recital in the
record on appeal, the appellate court was readily informed that the prescribed
period for filing the said record had been observed.  If the recitals in the record on appeal
concerning the extensions of the period for filing it were in any way incorrect
or untrue, it was incumbent upon respondent herein, or his counsel, to have
objected in due time to the approval of the said appeal record by the trial
court.

The rulings rendered in previous
cases^[3] passed upon by this Court, and cited by respondent,
are not here applicable.  For unlike in
the present case, there was nothing in the respective records on appeal
involved in the rulings invoked that indicated when appellants were notified of
the appealed decisions or orders, nor were there data in the said records on
appeal that would have enabled the appellate court to determine by itself
whether the appeals were timely made or not.

It is evident,
in the circumstances, that the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals
was improper.

WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Court of Appeals under review are
hereby set aside, and the appeal in CA-G.R. No. 40816-R is ordered reinstated
for consideration and resolution on its merits by the res­pondent Court of
Appeals.  No costs.

Dizon, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., on official leave.

Villamor, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Page 9, Petitioner’s Brief.

^[2]
Page 3, Respondent’ Brief.

^[3]
Government of the Phil. vs. Antonio, L-23736, 19 Oct. 1965, 15 SCRA 119; DBP vs. Santos, L-26387, 27
Sept. 1966, 18 SCRA 113; Araneta vs. Madrigal
& Co., Inc., et al., L-26227-28, 25 Oct. 1966, 18 SCRA 446; Jocson vs. Robles, L-23433, 10 Feb. 1968, 22 SCRA 521; Dequito
vs. Lopez, L-27757, 28 March 1968, 22 SCRA 1352; Anota
vs. Bermudo, L-29417, 21 September 1968, 25
SCRA 53.