G.R. No. L-27746 July 31, 1970
LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RALS CONSTRUCTION, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Luzon Stevedoring Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of respondent Rals Construction, Inc. before the Court of Appeals. The ground was that the record on appeal, on its face, failed to show that the appeal was perfected within the period fixed by the Rules of Court. The private respondent admitted its record on appeal lacked the necessary data showing when its counsel received the decision to determine the timeliness of the appeal. However, the Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss on April 12, 1967, and later denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on May 31, 1967. The Court of Appeals considered a certification from the City Sheriff of Manila indicating the appeal was timely. The petitioner assailed these resolutions via a special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing the respondent Court disregarded established rulings requiring dismissal for such a deficiency.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss an appeal where the record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the appeal of Rals Construction, Inc. The Court held that the Rules of Court (Rule 41, Section 6 and Rule 50, Section 1[a]) mandatorily require the record on appeal to contain data showing the appeal was perfected on time. This requirement is jurisdictional. Failure to comply warrants dismissal of the appeal. The Court reiterated its consistent doctrine from previous cases (Government v. Antonio, Development Bank of the Philippines v. Santos, J. Antonio Araneta v. Madrigal & Co., Inc., et al.). The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by disregarding these binding precedents. The certification of the trial court or other extrinsic evidence cannot cure the fatal defect on the face of the record on appeal. Inferior courts must yield deference to the doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court.