G.R. No. L-39393 October 29, 1976
AVELINO G. GREGORIO and IRENE J. GREGORIO, substituted Appellees for the deceased defendant EUSEBIO GREGORIO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CECILIO PANALIGAN, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from an action for recovery of possession of land with damages filed by respondent Cecilio Panaligan against Eusebio Gregorio. The Court of First Instance of Zambales rendered a judgment on June 6, 1973, dismissing Panaligan’s complaint. Panaligan filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court in its order dated October 31, 1973. On November 9, 1973, Panaligan filed his notice of appeal and appeal bond, stating therein that he received a copy of the denial order on November 8, 1973. He also filed a motion for extension to file his record on appeal, which the trial court granted, giving him until December 9, 1973. Panaligan filed his Record on Appeal on December 3, 1973. The trial court, finding it “in order,” approved the Record on Appeal in its Order of January 3, 1974.
After the records were elevated to the Court of Appeals, petitioners (the substituted heirs of the defendant) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. They contended that the Record on Appeal did not show on its face the dates when Panaligan received copies of the adverse decision and the order denying his motion for reconsideration, allegedly violating the material data rule under the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the appeal for alleged non-compliance with the material data rule requiring the Record on Appeal to show on its face the timeliness of the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the right of appeal. The Court ruled that there was substantial compliance with the material data rule. The Record on Appeal contained data from which the timeliness of the appeal could be verified: the motion for extension stated the reglementary period would expire on November 9, 1973, the order granting the extension was shown, and the Record on Appeal was filed within the extended period on December 3, 1973. These facts, undisputed by petitioners, sufficiently established that the appeal was perfected on time.
More importantly, the Court applied the prevailing liberal doctrine, as established in Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals and Pimentel vs. Court of Appeals. This doctrine holds that when the trial court, in its order approving the Record on Appeal, finds and declares that the appeal was timely perfected or that the Record on Appeal is “in order,” and the correctness of this determination is not impugned by the adverse party, the appellate court may properly rely on such finding. The reason for the material data rule is to avoid waste of time by the appellate court in verifying timeliness from the original records. This reason ceases when the trial court has already made a determination of timeliness, and that determination is unchallenged. Since the trial court here approved the Record on Appeal as “in order” without objection from petitioners, and petitioners did not dispute the veracity of this finding, the Court of Appeals correctly relied on it. The petition, invoking a rigid application of the rule, was therefore without merit.