MAGDALENA V. ACOSTA, JULIANA V. ACOSTA AND ROSITA V. ACOSTA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE ANDRES B. PLAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, BRANCH II, HO…

The only issue in this petition for review on certiorari
is whether the petitioners’ appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Isabela in Civil Case No. 1201, may be
dismissed for tardiness in submitting their record on appeal.

On January 8, 1962,
the petitioners filed an accion publiciana (Civil Case No. 1201) in the Court of
First Instance of Isabela against the private
respondent Bernardino Magday.  After the defendant had filed his answer, the
complaint was amended on August 25,
1971, to implead the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Bureau of Lands as additional
defendants.  Magday
filed an amended answer.  The Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director
of Lands filed separate answers to the amended complaint.

After the parties had submitted a stipulation of facts, the
court, upon plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or summary
judgment, which the defendant did not oppose, rendered judgment on October 3, 1975, dismissing the
complaint with costs against the plaintiffs (Annex F, pp. 35-46, Rollo).

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration (Annex G, p.
47, Rollo) of the decision.  It was denied by the respondent Judge on December 12, 1975 (Annex H, p. 50, Rollo).

On December 22, 1975,
they filed a motion for leave to appeal as paupers (Annex J, p. 52, Rollo)
and on December 23, 1975,
they filed a notice of appeal (Annex I, p. 51, Rollo).  The trial court granted on January 19, 1976 their motion to
appeal as paupers (Annex K, p. 55, Rollo).

Believing that as pauper litigants they did not have to submit a
record on appeal, they waited for the trial court to elevate the entire records
of the case to the Court of Appeals as provided in Section 16, Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court.  On June 16, 1976, respondent Judge dismissed the
appeal for failure to file a record on appeal (Annex L, p. 56, Rollo).  A motion for
reconsideration (Annex M, p. 57, Rollo) of the
dismissal order was filed by the appellants on July 26, 1976.  On August 10, 1976, they mailed their
record on appeal to the court.  On August 23, 1976, the lower court denied their motion for
reconsideration (Annex O, p. 60, Rollo).  Hence, this petition for certiorari by
the appellants raising the lone legal question of whether for the perfection of
an appeal by a pauper litigant, the timely submission of a record on appeal is
required.

Under the Rules of Court
then in force, a record on appeal was indeed required to be filed by a pauper
appellant although it did not have to be printed.  As argued by the Solicitor General in his
brief:

“Petitioners contend, however, that having been allowed by
the lower court to appeal as paupers, they are not required to file a record on
appeal since the entire record of the case shall be transmitted to the
appellate court and the case shall be heard upon the original record so
transmitted without printing the same.

“Sec. 16, Rule
41 of the Rules of Court, provides:

” ‘Sec. 16, Appeal by pauper.  – Where a party desiring to appeal
shall establish to the satisfaction of the trial court that he is a pauper and
unable to pay the expenses of prosecuting the appeal, and that the case is of
such importance, by reason of the amount involved, or the nature of the
questions raised, that it ought to be reviewed by the appellate court, the
trial judge may enter an order
entitling the party to appeal as pauper. 
The clerk shall transmit
to the appellate court the entire record of the case, including the evidence
taken on trial and the record on appeal, and the case shall be heard in the appellate court upon the original
record so transmitted without printing the same.’ (Italic types supplied.)

“It is clear that even a pauper litigant is required to
file a record on appeal.  What is not
required of him is the filing of a printed record on appeal, and, of
course, an appeal bond, since the cited Rule is designed to help the pauper
litigant who may not be able to pay the expenses of prosecuting the
appeal.  In contrast, Sec. 17 of the same Rule 41 which refers to
appeals in certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto
and employee’s liability cases categorically provides that ‘the original record
of the case shall be transmitted to the appellate court in lieu of the
record on appeal.’ In other words, appeals in special Civil actions do not require record on appeal; they are
perfected by the mere
filing of the notice of appeal (Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection
Board vs. Cloribel, 20 SCRA 517 [1967]).

“Indeed, records on appeal have been filed by pauper
litigants as a matter of course (Tiozon vs. Court of
Appeals, 70 SCRA 284 [1976]).” (pp. 7-9, Brief for the
Respondents; p. 109, Rollo.)

However, under B. P. Blg. 129, which
has overtaken this case before it could be decided, a record on appeal is no longer required for the
perfection of an appeal.  This new rule
was given retroactive effect in Alday vs. Camilon, 120 SCRA 521, where We
ruled:

“The reorganization having been declared   to have been completed, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is now in full
force and effect. A record on appeal is no longer necessary for taking an
appeal.  The same proviso appears in
Section 18 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by this Court on January 11,
1983.  Being procedural in nature, those
provisions may be applied
retroactively for the benefit of petitioners, as appellants.  ‘Statutes regulating the procedure of the
courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at
the time of their passage.  Procedural
laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent.’ (People vs. Sumilang, 77 Phil. 764).” (Cited in Palomo
Building Tenants Association, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 133 SCRA
168; De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 731; and Lagunzad vs. Court of Appeals, 154
SCRA 199.)

WHEREFORE, the decision dated October 3, 1975, of the trial court and its orders of June 16, 1976 and August 23, 1976 are hereby set aside.  The trial court
is hereby ordered to forward the entire records of Civil Case No. 1201 to the
Court of Appeals for the determination and disposition of the petitioners’ appeal on the merits.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.