TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND AIR INDIA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Resolution
of the Court of Appeals dated July 27, 1972, which dismissed the appeals of
both plaintiffs-appellants Esperanza Osmeña, Rosalinda O. Valencia and Elpidio
Valencia (collectively referred to as the Osmeñas), and defendant-appellant,
now petitioner, Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA for short), on the ground that
their Joint Record on Appeal failed to show on its face that their appeals were
perfected on time.

This case started on November 4, 1966 when the Osmeñas filed
Civil Case No. 9605 for Damages, against TWA and Air India, before the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, Branch VIII, presided by Hon. Benjamin H. Aquino.

The Complaint alleged that while in New York on October 19, 1964,
the Osmeñas (excluding Elpidio Valencia, husband of Rosalinda O. Valencia, who
was impleaded as a formal party) bought and were issued confirmed first class
tickets by TWA, acting as agent, for accommodations on Air India’s Flight No.
110 from Cairo to New Delhi sche­duled on November 7, 1964.  After their arrival in Cairo on November 3,
1964, the Osmeñas claimed that they verified and were assured by Air India that
their reservation was in order. 
Plaintiff, Esperanza Osmeña, had to keep an appointment with her heart
specialist in New Delhi.  Shortly before
departure time on November 7, 1964, officials of Air India informed the Osmeñas
that there were no more available first class seats and that they had to take
the tourist section, a lower and cheaper category than that which they had paid
for.  Despite the Osmeñas’ protestations
and the intercessions made by the Philippine Ambassador to Cairo, as well as a
former United Arab Republic Ambassador to the Philippines, Air India failed to
admit the Osmeñas into the first class section.

On September 30, 1970, the trial Court held TWA solely liable to
the Osmeñas for P85,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages
and P5,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees. 
The basis for so holding was that TWA acted beyond the scope of its authority
as agent for Air India for having issued the tickets to the Osmeñas despite
instruction to wait-list them.

TWA received the Decision on October 9, 1970.  On October 28, 1970, it seasonably filed its
Notice of Appeal, cash appeal bond of P120.00 and Record on Appeal, with the
latter being set for hearing on November 7, 1970.

On November 3, 1970, the Osmeñas filed a “Motion for
Deferment of the Hearing of TWA’s Record on Appeal” on the ground that
they also intended to appeal.  This
Motion was granted on November 7, 1970, and the hearing was reset for November
21, 1970, the Judge hinting on the possibility of consolidating their Records
on Appeal.

On November 11, 1970, the Osmeñas, who received the Decision on
October 16, 1970, filed their Notice of Appeal and cash appeal bond, well
within the reglementary period.  At the
same time, they filed a Motion for Extension of thirty (30) days from November
15, 1970 within which to file
their Record on Appeal and set the hearing for November 21, 1970, the same date
scheduled for the hearing on TWA’s Record on Appeal.  This hearing was postponed to November 23,
1970.

On November 23, 1970, the Osmeñas filed a “Motion for
Amendment of Record on Appeal of Defendant TWA and Approval as Joint Record on
Appeal,” to include additional pleadings and Orders.  This was set for hearing on December 5, 1970.

On December 3, 1970, TWA filed a “Manifestation and Motion
for Approval of (its) Record on Appeal” objecting to the Osmeña proposal
of submitting a Joint Record on Appeal.

On December 5, 1970, the trial Court withheld action on TWA’s
Motion, set the same for consideration on December 19, 1970, and gave the
Osmeñas ten (10) days from December 5, 1970 within which to submit their
objections to TWA’s Record on Appeal and to file their own Record on Appeal.

On December 9, 1970, the Osmeñas filed an
“Opposition/Manifestation to TWA’s Record on Appeal and Motion for
Deferment and/or Extension of Filing of Plaintiffs’ Record on Appeal” for
thirty (30) days from December 15, 1970.

On December 19, 1970, at the hearing for the consi­deration of
TWA’s Record on Appeal and the Osmeñas’ Opposition thereto, as well as the
Motion for Extension to file their Record on Appeal, defendant Air India
appeared, interposed no objection to the Record on Appeal of TWA, and suggested
that the items desired by the Osmeñas be added at the bottom of TWA’s Record on
Appeal.

On December 23, 1970, the Osmeñas filed a “Motion for Joint
Record on Appeal”, which was granted on January 19, 1971.  The Order of approval reads in part as
follows:

“Finding the ‘Motion for Joint Record on Appeal’, dated
December 23, 1970, filed by plaintiffs through counsel to be well-taken, it
appearing that said motion was filed in accordance with Sec. 8, Rule 41 of the
Revised Rules of Court, and for want of any objection from the defendants, as
prayed for, said motion is granted and the joint record on appeal attached
thereto is approved.

“x x x x

“SO ORDERED.”

On June 10, 1971, the printed Joint Record on Appeal, the cost of
which was shared by the Osmeñas and TWA, was filed with the Court of Appeals;
on July 13, 1971, TWA’s Brief; and on August 10, 1971, the Brief of the
Osmeñas.

After filing a “Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Brief
and a Motion for Extension of ninety (90) days within which to file
Brief,” defendant-appellee Air India, on November 20, 1971, filed a
“Motion to Dismiss Appeal Both of Plaintiffs and Defendant TWA” on
the ground that their Joint Record on Appeal failed to show on its face that
their appeals were perfected on time.

On December 9, 1971, TWA filed its Opposition and moved that the
Court of Appeals order the trial Court to elevate its original Record on Appeal
filed on October 28, 1970.

Upon personal representations of the TWA counsel, the Clerk of
Court of the trial Court, on March 22, 1972, certified to the Court of Appeals
the original Record on Appeal filed by TWA, which then became part of the
Appellate Court records.

On July 27, 1972, respondent Court of Appeals, by a split
three-to-two vote,^[1]
issued the Resolution in question dismissing the appeals of the Osmeñas and
TWA.

On August 11, 1972, TWA filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari.  This Court initially denied it for lack of
merit but subsequently resolved to give it due course on February 23,
1973.  It should be noted that only TWA
has filed this Petition.

The lone error assigned by TWA reads:

“The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal of
petitioner in CA-G.R. No. 48347 entitled ‘Esperanza Osmeña, et al. vs. Trans World
Airlines, Inc. and Air India’ on the sole ground that the printed Joint Record
on Appeal that was unilaterally filed by the Osmeñas did not contain data
showing that the appeal of Trans World Airlines, as well as that of the
Osmeñas, had been perfected on time, despite the fact that the original Record
on Appeal filed by Trans World Airlines was admittedly filed on time, and
despite the fact that the circumstances leading to the trial Court’s approval
of the Joint Record on Appeal indi­cated that the trial Court acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction or with such a grave abuse of dis­cretion as amounted
to lack of jurisdiction.”

Noticeably, the Joint Record on Appeal fails to show on its face
the timeliness of the appeals.  Failure
to do so, however, is no longer necessarily fatal.  This case now falls within the ambit of the
liberalized interpretation and application of the “material data
rule”.^[2]
The ruling in Araneta vs. Madrigal & Co., Inc.^[3]
on the mandatory and jurisdictional requirement of section 6, Rule 41, relied
upon by the Court of Appeals, has since been abandoned.

It is not denied that the Joint Record on Appeal was filed within
the period of extension requested.  The
Order approving it, supra, specifically states that it was filed
“in accordance with section 8, Rule 41”, and that there was no
objection thereto from the defendants (meaning TWA as defendant-appellant and
Air India, as defendant-appellee).^[4]
Section 8, in turn, mentions section 3 of the same Rule treating of the 30-day
period within which the Notice of Appeal, an Appeal Bond and Record on Appeal
should be filed.  In other words, the
trial Court concluded that the Joint Record on Appeal was filed on time.  This inescapable feature redeems the Joint
Record on Appeal from its apparent deficiency. 
The Appellate Court could have relied on said approval.

“The dismissal of the appeal for failure to include all the
material data indicating that the appeal was seasonably perfected is erroneous
and constitutes a grave abuse of dis­cretion, if there is attached in the
records on appeal the unopposed order of the trial court stating that the
notice of appeal, records on appeal and appeal bonds have been filed within the
reglementary period, the truth and correctness of which statement is not disputed.  Such order a part of the original and printed
record on appeal and the accuracy and truth of the factual statements therein
not being im­pugned by the appellees could be relied upon by the appellate
court to determine whether the appeal was perfected on time.”^[5]

And while it may be that it is only TWA who has appealed by Certiorari
from the Appellate Court’s Resolution disallowing both appeals, we are not
inclined to adopt too narrow and simplistic a view of the entire proceedings in
the higher interest of real and substantial justice.  Every litigant should be liberally given
assistance in obtaining a fair, expeditious and reasonable determination of his
rights without technicalities and without strict adherence to the letter of the
Rules, thereby promoting their objective.^[6]

TWA’s submission that the Order of the trial Court granting the
Osmeñas’ Motion to File Joint Record on Appeal on January 19, 1971 was void ab
initio because said Order did not thereby
grant also the extension of time requested to file the Osmeñas’ Record on
Appeal, or, if it did, the same came four days late of the requested period of
extension of thirty days, is untenable. 
The Order of January 19, 1971 had the effect of allowing not only the
“Motion to File Joint Record on Appeal” but also the “Motion for
Deferment and/or Extension of Filing of Plaintiffs’ (Osmeñas’) Record on
Appeal” for thirty days from December 15, 1970.  So that, when the Joint Record on Appeal was actually
filed on December 23, 1970, the trial Court still had jurisdiction to approve
the same even if such grant or approval was made after the lapse of the
requested period of extension.

“The mere absence of a formal order granting the motion for
extension of time to file the record on appeal should not be fatal to the
petitioner if the record on appeal filed within the requested period was approved by the court a quo.  The approval thereof carries with it the
approval of the motion for extension and the mere failure of the record on
appeal to show such approval should not defeat the right to appeal.”^[7]

Besides, the Joint Record on Appeal was actually more of an
amended Record on Appeal.  In fact, on
November 23, 1970, the Osmeñas moved for the amendment of the TWA Record
on Appeal and its approval as a joint Record on Appeal.  The trial Court granted this Motion.  The Osmeñas merely added two paragraphs to
the TWA Record on Appeal, namely, (1) the date of plaintiffs’ answer to defendant’s
counterclaim, and (2) the respective dates of plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal,
Appeal Bond and Motion for Extension to file Record on Appeal.  The Joint Record on Appeal, therefore, is
deemed to have been filed upon the presentation of the original Record on
Appeal by TWA, which was done within the reglementary period, without even
asking for an extension of time to file the same.^[8]
As has been held “the fact that the amended record on appeal was submitted
after the reglementary period, did not render the perfection thereof, untimely,
because the amended record on appeal is deemed to have been filed
on the presentation of the original which was done within the reglementary
period.'” For, “‘x x x amendment presupposes the existence of
something to be amended, and, therefore, the tolling of the period should
relate back to the filing of the pleading sought to be amended x x x.'”^[9]

In any case, the plain truth can not be ignored that the Joint
Record on Appeal was filed within the requested period of extension and was
duly approved by the trial Court.  This
is what decisively matters.  That
approval waived whatever defects or omissions there were with reference to
section 6, Rule 41, of the Rules of Court specially so where, as in this case,
the veracity of the findings of the trial Court on the matter had not been
disputed by any of the parties.  The case
of Nuguid Vda. de Herber vs. Martinez^[10]
is authority for the view that no trial Judge in his right mind and who is
aware of the serious responsibilities of his office would approve an appeal
that has not been seasonably perfected.

WHEREFORE, respondent Court of Appeals’ Resolution in
CA-G.R. No. 48347-R, dated July 27, 1972, dismissing both appeals of
plaintiffs-appellants Esperanza Osmeña, et al., and defendant-appellant Trans
World Airlines, Inc., is hereby set aside, their appeals reinstated, and the
case remanded for judgment on the merits.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., Makasiar, Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Fernandez, J., no part.

^[1]
Penned by Reyes, A., J., concurred in by Muñoz Palma and Reyes, L.B., JJ.
with Enriquez, Actg. Pres. J. and Fernandez, J.,
dissenting.

^[2]
Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 76 SCRA 609 (1977).

^[3]
18 SCRA 446 (1966).

^[4]
Annex “L”, Joint Record on Appeal, pp. 43-44.

^[5]
Pimentel vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39423 and L-39684, June 27,
1975, 71 O.G. 6603.

^[6]
Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining
Co., 86 SCRA 79 (1978).

^[7] Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals, 53
SCRA 228 (1973).

^[8] Pajarillo vs. Court of Appeals, 74
SCRA 151 (1976); Diola vs. Court of Appeals, 70 SCRA 511 (1976);
Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, 68 SCRA 262 (1975).

^[9]
NAWASA vs. Mun. of Libmanan, 97 SCRA 138 (1980), citing Vda. de Oyzon vs.
Vinzon, 8 SCRA 455 (1963); Philippine Independent Church vs. Mateo, et
al., 111 Phil. 752 (1961).

^[10]
62 SCRA 162 (1975).