JESUSA LIQUIDO, CLEMENTINA LIQUIDO, CLEMENTINO LIQUIDO, ADELENDEZ LIQUIDO, FRANCISCO LIQUIDO, FELICISIMA LIQUIDO, JUAN LIQUIDO, JR., AND JOVITA LIQUIDO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON…

In this appeal by Certiorari,
we are called upon to review the Resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals^[1] upholding the Order of the Court of First
Instance of Surigao del Norte, Branch II, in its
Civil Case No. 2107, disallowing petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the
Record on Appeal within the reglementary period, and
for not having served upon private respondents a copy of the Appeal Bond.

It is undisputed that
petitioners had up to January 19, 1974 within which to perfect an appeal from an
adverse Decision in Civil Case No. 2107 wherein they were the defendants and
private respondents the plaintiffs. 
Petitioners duly filed the Notice of Appeal and a property Appeal Bond
on January 11, 1974 and January 19, 1974, respectively.

On January 18, 1974, or
one day before the last day for the perfection of the appeal, petitioners moved
for 15 days extension from deadline within which to submit their Record on
Appeal, and prayed that the Motion be included in the Court’s calendar of
January 21, 1974.^[2] The Motion, however, remained unacted upon as the Presiding Judge was out-of-town.

On February 1, 1974,
or on the 13th day of the requested extension, petitioners filed their Record
on Appeal.

The Trial Court disallowed the appeal on the ground that
petitioners could not assume that their Motion for Extension would be favorably
acted upon by the Court and that it was incumbent upon them to have followed up the outcome of their
Motion with the Court.  Petitioners’
request for reconsideration was similarly denied.

On June 13, 1974,
petitioners elevated the case to this Tribunal on Certiorari and Mandamus
(G.R. No. L-38880), but we referred the same to respondent Court in our
Resolution of July 12, 1974.^[3]

On August 7, 1974,
respondent Court affirmed the findings of the Court a quo and denied due
course to the Petition.  Reconsideration was likewise rejected.  It is these Resolutions that are now assailed
before us.

Following the trend of liberality in meritorious cases adopted by
this Court in more recent years, we are constrained to reverse.

While it may be true that it was not for petitioners to have
assumed that their prayer for extension would
be granted, it is equally true that peti­tioners submitted their Record on
Appeal within the extended period prayed for. 
Petitioners’ Motion for Extension did not affect the substantive rights
of private respondents as it merely sought to extend the period to file the
Record on Appeal, which extension may be granted by the Trial Court upon
application made prior to the expiration of the original period.^[4]

Neither can we sanction the dismissal of petitioners’ appeal by
the Trial Court due to petitioners’ failure to serve respondents with a copy of
the pro­perty Appeal Bond.  That bond was
filed within the reglementary period.  And while it may be that Section 3, Rule 41
of the Rules of Court^[5]
requires ser­vice in order that the adverse party could examine the bond and
interpose any objection thereto, such notice cannot be considered
jurisdictional and fatal to
petitioners’ appeal.  As in the filing of
Records on Appeal, this Court has invariably taken a liberal attitude in favor
of an appellant in the matter of the filing of appeal bonds in relation to the
perfection of appeals.^[6]
Where non-compliance with service of the Notice of Appeal, Appeal Bond, and
Record on Appeal upon the adverse party did not cause any impairment of his
right, it will not be considered a ground for dismissal and, in such event, the
Court’s discretion in giving due course to the appeal would be guided and
tempered by the interests of justice.^[7]

WHEREFORE, the
Petition is granted.  The challenged
Resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals, dated August 7, 1974 and April 30, 1974, are hereby SET ASIDE.  The Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte, Branch II, is hereby directed to approve
petitioners’ Record on Appeal, to examine the sufficiency of petitioners’
Appeal Bond, and if adequate, to give due course to petitioners’ appeal.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Vasquez, Relova, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Plana, J., took no part.

^[1]
Former Third Division composed of Justices Magno S. Gatmaitan, Chairman, Luis B. Reyes and Efren
I. Plana, Members.

^[2]
p. 5, CA Rollo.

^[3]
p. 20, ibid.

^[4]
Manuel Yap vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-51458, July 19, 1982, citing Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals, 53 SCRA 228
(1973).

^[5]
“SEC. 3.  How appeal is taken.  – Appeal may be taken by serving upon the
adverse party and filing with the trial court within thirty (30) days from
notice of order or judgment, a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record
on appeal.  The time during which a
motion to set aside the judgment or order or for a new trial has been pending
shall be deducted, unless such motion fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule
37.

“But where such a motion has
been filed during office hours of the last day of the period herein provided,
the appeal must be perfected within the day following that in which the party
appealing received notice of the denial of said motion.”

^[6]
Perla Cia. de Seguros, Inc. vs. Concepcion, 104 SCRA 786 (1981)

^[7]
Phil. Resources Development Corp. vs. Narvasa,
114 Phil. 347 (1962).