G.R. No. L-33063 February 28, 1979
CATALINO CATINDIG and BARBARA CARTA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, LORENZO DE LEON, ROMANA BARRAQUIO and GABRIEL BAYNOSA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Catalino Catindig and Barbara Carta filed a civil case in the Court of First Instance of Laguna to compel private respondents to surrender a certificate of title and acknowledge a contract of sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint and reformed the document into an equitable mortgage redeemable by respondents. Petitioners perfected their appeal to the Court of Appeals. Their original counsels, Attys. Bonifacio and Padua, withdrew their appearance on May 20, 1970. Atty. Arsenio Velasquez formally entered his appearance as new counsel on June 16, 1970.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals sent a notice dated May 25, 1970, directing the filing of a printed record on appeal, to the former counsels, who received it on June 3. The deadline was August 2, 1970. Atty. Velasquez never received this notice, and the former counsels did not comply, believing their withdrawal relieved them of responsibility. Upon discovering the notice on August 11, Atty. Velasquez promptly printed and filed the record on appeal on August 18, 1970. However, the Court of Appeals had already issued a resolution that same day dismissing the appeal for failure to file the printed record on time. Motions for reconsideration were subsequently denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the printed record on appeal within the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. The failure to timely file the printed record on appeal was excusable under the circumstances. The notice was sent to the withdrawn counsels, and the new counsel was unaware of the deadline. Upon discovery, he acted with dispatch to comply. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should not be applied rigidly to override substantial justice, especially when no prejudice is caused to the adverse party and the lapse is non-jurisdictional. Petitioners demonstrated no intent to abandon their appeal, having voluntarily paid the appellate docket fee. The discretionary power to dismiss an appeal must be exercised wisely and prudently to afford litigants the fullest opportunity to establish their case on the merits. The policy is to decide appeals on their substance, not on technicalities. Consequently, the resolutions of the Court of Appeals were set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits.