Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37124)
Facts:
The case involves Isabel Andaya as the petitioner and the Court of Appeals and Benedicto Ramos as the respondents. The events leading to this case began in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, where Benedicto Ramos filed a case against Isabel Andaya. On September 4, 1972, Andaya's counsel received a copy of the decision, but there was a discrepancy regarding the date of receipt, as the original Record on Appeal indicated October 4, 1972. On October 19, 1972, Andaya filed a motion for a new trial, which was considered to be filed 45 days after the decision was received. The trial court denied this motion on December 19, 1972, the same day Andaya filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond. The Court of Appeals dismissed Andaya's appeal on April 26, 1973, citing that her notice of appeal was filed too late, as it was based on the rigid application of the material data rule. The Court of Appeals noted that the original Record on Appeal did not include the 15-day exten...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37124)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- Petitioner Isabel Andaya appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.
- Private respondent Benedicto Ramos (plaintiff-appellee) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which was granted by the Court of Appeals.
Timeline of Events:
- Petitioner’s counsel received the trial court’s decision on September 4, 1972.
- On October 19, 1972, petitioner filed a motion for new trial.
- On December 19, 1972, petitioner received the trial court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration and filed her notice of appeal and appeal bond on the same day.
Record on Appeal Issues:
- The Record on Appeal did not include the 15-day extension granted by the trial court for filing the motion for reconsideration.
- The trial court approved the Record on Appeal on February 2, 1973, after corrections were made.
Court of Appeals’ Decision:
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling that the notice of appeal and appeal bond were filed too late, as the motion for reconsideration was filed on the 45th day from receipt of the decision.
Petitioner’s Argument:
- Petitioner argued that she had timely moved for and was granted a 15-day extension to file her motion for reconsideration, but this was not reflected in the Record on Appeal.
Trial Court’s Approval of Record on Appeal:
- The trial court approved the Record on Appeal, finding it to be in order, and noted that respondent did not object to its approval.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal based on the non-inclusion of the 15-day extension in the Record on Appeal.
- Whether the trial court’s approval of the Record on Appeal, which declared it timely filed, should be relied upon by the appellate court.
- Whether the material data rule should be applied rigidly or liberally in this case.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)