GR 102748; (June, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102748 June 30, 1993
GOULDS PUMPS (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, respondents.
FACTS
On August 31, 1970, petitioner Goulds Pumps (Phils.), Inc. filed an action against private respondent First National City Bank of New York before the Court of First Instance of Manila (docketed as Civil Case No. 80842) to compel compliance with obligations under four Forward Exchange Purchase Contracts. On November 9, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner. On November 28, 1988, private respondent filed a notice of appeal. On May 31, 1991, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 32522) because private respondent had not taken steps to have the records elevated for nearly three years. Private respondent opposed, contending the trial court had not issued an order on the appeal and the parties had been negotiating for an amicable settlement. On June 18, 1991, private respondent filed an urgent motion before the trial court to give due course to the appeal. The Court of Appeals, on June 25, 1991, denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and required private respondent’s counsel to inform the court of actions taken to elevate the records. Subsequently, on November 4, 1991, the Court of Appeals issued the questioned resolution ordering the Clerk of Court of the RTC to elevate the complete records or explain non-compliance within five days.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the appeal of private respondent considering the latter’s failure to take any step to have the records elevated to said court for nearly three (3) years.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the cases of Arcega v. Court of Appeals and Estella v. Court of Appeals, which involved dismissals of appeals for failure to prosecute, were inapplicable. In those cases, the appellants offered no justification for the delay, whereas in the present case, private respondent contended that negotiations for an amicable settlement had been ongoing. The Court found that the period when settlement negotiations were initiated involved a factual issue not proper for review on certiorari, as findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are conclusive. The Court of Appeals had found that a probable cause of the delay was the pursuit of an amicable settlement initiated by the appellant and not discouraged by the appellee. The Supreme Court emphasized the policy to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and frowned upon the dismissal of the appeal purely on technical grounds under the circumstances.