GR 33101; (July, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33101. July 30, 1971.
GUADALUPE DE GUIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR., HONORABLE EULOGIO SERRANO, AND HON. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, Associate Justices of the Special Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals, SILVERIA, AURORA, PAULA and PATERNO, all surnamed ESPIRITU, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Guadalupe de Guia appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance of Bulacan to the Court of Appeals. The private respondents, the Espiritu siblings, moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that the submitted Record on Appeal failed to comply with specific sections of Rule 41 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court. They argued the Record on Appeal lacked sufficient data to demonstrate the appeal was perfected on time.
Specifically, the respondents pointed out three critical omissions: the Record on Appeal did not contain a copy of the order denying the motion for new trial; it contained no mention of the filing of the appeal bond or its filing date; and it lacked a copy of the order approving the record on appeal itself. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. De Guia’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to file this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the appellate court.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal due to the petitioner’s failure to include in the Record on Appeal data showing the timely perfection of the appeal, particularly regarding the appeal bond?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court sustained the dismissal. Section 6, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court explicitly mandates that the record on appeal must include, among other things, “such data as will show that the appeal was perfected in time.” The petitioner’s Record on Appeal was fatally defective because it contained no mention or reference whatsoever to the filing of the appeal bond. The appeal bond is a crucial component for perfecting an appeal under Section 3 of the same Rule, requiring its filing within a prescribed period.
The Court emphasized that since 1965, it had consistently ruled that non-compliance with Section 6 of Rule 41 justifies dismissal. The omission of the appeal bond data alone was sufficient ground. The Court cited its recent ruling in Reyes vs. Carrasco and Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-28782, March 31, 1971) as squarely controlling. The belated submission of a receipt for the bond with the petition to the Supreme Court could not cure the omission in the Record on Appeal itself. The rule was designed precisely to prevent such ancillary inquiries and to enable appellate courts to determine timeliness from the face of the record, thereby avoiding unnecessary delays. The Court noted that continued liberality would be unjust to diligent litigants and counsel who adhere to the rules. The petition was denied.