PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC. AND HON. JUDGE ARSENIO SOLIDUM, PETITIONERS, VS. MARIANO MEDINA, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 22958-R.

In the Court of First Instance of Manila, Parsons Hardware Co., Inc.
instituted an action (Civil Case No. 31879) against Mariano Medina for
a sum of money. After trial, decision was rendered by the trial judge
against the defendant who was notified thereof on January 11, 1958. On
February 2,1958, the defendant filed his notice of appeal, appeal bond
and record on appeal. The trial judge, upon objection of Parsons
Hardware Co., Inc. to the record on appeal, ordered its amendment. The
order, which is dated February 8, 1958, reads as follows:

“Upon consideration of the Record on Appeal tendered
by the defendant and the opposition thereto by the plaintiff, the Court
hereby orders said defendant to amend his record on appeal by including
therein the pleadings, motions and orders pointed out in said
opposition, with the exception of the order directing the parties to
submit simultaneous memoranda and their memoranda. Said defendants is
also required to make the necessary corrections of the typographical
errors and omissions specified in said opposition, and for this
purpose, the defendant is given five (5) days within which to submit an
amended record on appeal. The hearing of the amended record on appeal
is set for February 22, 1958, at 10:00 a.m.”

On February 15, 1958, the defendant received a copy of the above
order. After the expiration of the five-day period, no amended record
on appeal was filed with the trial court. However, on February 22,
1958, the date set for its hearing, the trial judge—apparently in order
to give the defendant an opportunity to file his amended record on
appeal—transferred the hearing to March 1,1958.

On February 25, 1958, defendant Medina filed a “CONSTANCIA” averring
that certain pleading ordered to be included in the record on appeal
need not be included therein. On March 1, 1958, the date scheduled for
the hearing, the defendant again failed to submit his amended record on
appeal. Nevertheless, the trial court, upon its own motion, granted the
defendant another five days within which to file the same. The
extension was contained in an order dated March 1, 1958 which reads as
follows:

“Counsel for the defendant is hereby granted another
period of five (5) days from his receipt of a copy thereof within which
to comply with the order of this Court of February 8, 1958, directing
him to submit an amended record on appeal in conformity with said
order.”

A copy of the above order was served upon the defendant on March 8, 1958.

On March 12, 1958, defendant Medina filed a “MOCION” praying that he
be allowed to insert various documents in the record on appeal. The
motion was set for hearing on March 22, 1958. After hearing, the trial
court denied the motion in the following order:

“Upon consideration of the motion filed by counsel
for the defendant, praying that certain insertions be made in the
record on appeal tendered by him, and the opposition thereto by the
plaintiff, the Court finds that said motion is not in accordance with
the Rules and is hereby denied.”

The defendant received notice of the order on March 29, 1958.

After the denial of the defendant’s motion, but on a date which the
record does not disclose, a motion for issuance of writ of execution
was filed by plaintiff Parsons Hardware Co., Inc. and the defendant
received a copy thereof on March 28, 1958. Within four days after
receipt of the motion for execution or on April 1, 1958, the defendant
filed his amended record on appeal. Hearing of the same was set on
April 12, 1958, the very same date on which the plaintiff’s motion for
execution was scheduled to be heard.

On April 12,1958, the trial court acting upon the motion for
execution and the amended record on appeal, granted the former, but
disapproved the latter in an order which reads:

“Upon consideration of the amended record on appeal
tendered by the defendant and the opposition thereto by the plaintiff,
the Court finds that said amended record on appeal was presented beyond
the legal period and the same is hereby disapproved.

“As prayed for by the plaintiff, let a writ of execution be issued.”

Not satisfied with the above order of the trial court, defendant
Medina filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus with
preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals against the trial
judge and Parsons Hardware Co., Inc. The petition prayed for the
suspension of the carrying out of the order of execution and the
approval of the amended record on appeal. On June 30, 1958, the Court
of Appeals granted the petition. Hence, Parsons Hardware Co., Inc.
brought this petition for review.

We find merit in the petition.

According to the Rules of Court, “if the trial judge orders the amendment of the record, the appellant, within the time limited in the order, or such extension thereof as may be granted,
shall redraft the record by including therein, in their proper
chronological sequence, such additional matters as the court may have
directed him to incorporate, and shall thereupon submit the redrafted
record for approval, upon notice to the appellee, in like manner as the
original draft.” (Section 7, Rule 41.) In the present case, appellant
Medina, the respondent herein, failed to file his amended record on
appeal not only within the time ordered by the trial judge, but also
within the subsequent extensions granted to him. It was only after he
received a copy of the appellee’s (Parsons Hardware Co., Inc. the
petitioner herein) motion for the issuance of the writ of execution
that he filed his amended record appeal. However, the trial judge
disapproved it, because it was presented out of time.

The rule in this jurisdiction is to the effect that if the record on
appeal is filed outside the reglementary period, it is discretionary
upon the trial judge to approve or disapprove the same, and mandamus
will lie only when he manifestly and grossly abused his discretion.
(Lituaña vs. Oliveros, 38 Phil. 630, 631; Bustamente vs.
Tirona, 73 Phil. 665.) In the case at bar, the appellant,
notwithstanding the several extensions granted to him within which to
file his amended record on appeal, failed to submit the same on time
without giving any reason for the delay. And it was only after he was
notified of the motion for execution that he filed his amended record
on appeal. Under these circumstances, We think that the trial judge
acted correctly and did not commit any abuse of discretion in
disapproving the same. On account of the disapproval, the appeal was
never perfected. (Section 9, Rule 41, Rules of Court.) The decision,
therefore, became final and the issuance of the writ of execution was
in order.

The Court of Appeals—considering the filing of the “CONSTANCIA” and
“MOCION” by respondent as revealing his intention to obey the order of
the court—is of the opinion that the “trial court could have stretched
a little more or its desire to be liberal so as to attain substantial
justice.” We think, however, that such opinion would open the door to
the use of dilatory tactics and hamper the effectiveness of our
judicial processes. Mere “intention to obey” is not compliance with the
rules. The respondent should have filed his amended record on appeal on
time and if he wanted to include or exclude certain documents therein,
he could have done so by asking the court at the hearing for its
approval.

The respondent appeals to a liberal interpretation of the rules and
the avoidance of technicalities in order that the merits or demerits of
the case may be decided on appeal. We have no objection to the liberal
interpretation of the rules, but such interpretation must also be
reasonable. The respondent has repeatedly failed to take the necessary
steps for the correction of the record on appeal within the time
prescribed by the trial judge and such failure is one of the grounds
for the dismissal of an appeal. (Section 1 [g], Rule 52, Rules of
Court; to the same effect, De Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 75 Phil., 824.)

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. No. 22958-R is hereby set aside and the order of the Court of
First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 31879 dated April 12, 1958
is hereby affirmed all respects. Without costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.