G.R. No. L-37068 - Alfonso vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners, Eulalia Alfonso and Mario Mababangloob, initiated an appeal against the trial court’s decision dated June 26, 1972.

The trial court’s decision, rendered after a partial stipulation of facts and trial, recognized petitioners’ ownership of a residential lot while declaring private respondents owners of a partly built house on that lot and ordering respondents to pay petitioners P37.50 monthly.

Dissent arose when petitioners were dissatisfied with the award of the house to the respondents, prompting the filing of a notice of appeal on December 29, 1972.

Petitioners filed their notice of appeal, the original record on appeal, and an appeal bond in the form of a postal money order (bearing No. A-8889196 for P120.60) on December 29, 1972.

The trial court approved the petitioners’ record on appeal during the January 26, 1973, hearing, with no objections from the respondents despite due notice.

On March 30, 1973, petitioners paid the appellate court’s docket fee, and on April 25, 1973, they submitted a sixty-eight (68)-page printed record on appeal, furnishing copies to the respondents.

On May 14, 1973, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that the printed record failed to demonstrate that the appeal bond was filed within the reglementary period as required by Rule 41, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.

Despite there being no dispute on the timeliness of the filing of the notice of appeal and the record on appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal solely on the basis that the printed record did not indicate the filing of the appeal bond.

The dismissal was based on a literal interpretation of the record, ignoring that the original record on appeal, which the appellate court had on file, clearly showed the appeal bond was filed timely.

The respondent court, after being requested by the Supreme Court, verified on November 16, 1973, that the original (typewritten) record on appeal indeed indicated the filing of the appeal bond together with the notice of appeal.

Evidence from the original record included data stamped on a xerox copy attached as Annex “A,” which showed the postal money order details, amount paid, and the date of issuance (December 29, 1972).

The registry receipts proving service by registered mail further supported that the appeal bond, notice of appeal, and record on appeal were all promptly filed.

The case references Ever Ice Drop Factory vs. Court of Appeals, where similar issues of omission in the printed record were resolved by considering the original record.

The Court also cited Design Masters vs. Court of Appeals, emphasizing that determining the filing date should rely on the original record as filed with the trial court rather than on the printed version forwarded to the appellate court.

Whether the absence of an explicit reference to the appeal bond filing in the printed record on appeal is sufficient to justify dismissal of the appeal, notwithstanding that the original record on appeal demonstrates timely filing.
Whether the requirement under Rule 41, Section 6 of the Rules of Court mandates literal compliance in the printed record or permits substantial compliance when the original record shows all the material data.
Whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis of the omission in the printed record despite clear evidence in the original record regarding the filing of the appeal bond.