Facts:

The case involves Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corporation (hereafter referred to as the "Plaintiff-Appellant"), and Progressive Labor Association, along with Bernardo O. Calang and Delfin Mercader (collectively referred to as "Defendants-Appellees"). The incidents relevant to this case occurred in Cebu, where on August 31, 1966, the Court of First Instance of Cebu issued an order dismissing the Plaintiff-Appellant's complaint, which sought breach of contract, damages, and injunction, for lack of jurisdiction. Following this dismissal, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration on September 15, 1966. This motion was subsequently denied on October 8, 1966. The Plaintiff-Appellant lodged a notice of appeal on November 14, 1966, and within five days, specifically on November 19, 1966, the record on appeal was filed. However, the record lacked critical information including the dates on which the Plaintiff-Appellant was notified

...

Facts:

Chronology of the Proceedings

• On August 31, 1966, the Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissed the complaint for breach of contract, damages, and injunction due to lack of jurisdiction.
• On September 15, 1966, the plaintiff-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal.
• On October 8, 1966, the motion for reconsideration was denied.
• On November 14, 1966, the plaintiff-appellant filed a notice of appeal.
• On November 19, 1966, the record on appeal was filed.

Deficiency in the Record on Appeal

• The record on appeal did not indicate the date when the plaintiff-appellant received notice of the dismissal order, which ordinarily triggers the running of the appeal period.
• It also omitted the date when the plaintiff-appellant received notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration—a date from which the appeal period would resume.
• Consequently, from the face of the record, it appears that the appeal was perfected 53 days after the dismissal order, but the essential data to verify this was missing.

Relevant Provisions and Amendments

• Section 6, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that the record on appeal must include “such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time.”
• The amendment to the Rules of Court, as explained in Araneta vs. Madrigal, et al., was intended to prevent disputes concerning the timeliness of the perfection of an appeal by requiring this specific data in the record.
• Section 1, Rule 50 further specifies that failure of the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the prescribed period is ground for dismissal.

Plaintiff’s Argument and Supporting Evidence

• The plaintiff-appellant did not dispute the deficiencies noted in the record on appeal.
• It argued that the appeal had indeed been perfected within the reglementary period, submitting a certification from the Clerk of Court stating the relevant receipt dates for the dismissal and the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
• The plaintiff maintained that such certification should suffice to demonstrate timeliness, despite the omission in the record.

Issue:

• Whether the record on appeal fulfilled the requirements of Section 6, Rule 41 by showing that the appeal was perfected on time.
• Whether the omission of the dates indicating receipt of the dismissal order and the denial of the motion for reconsideration is fatal to the appeal, rendering the appellate court without jurisdiction over the case.
• Whether the certification by the Clerk of Court, submitted as evidence of timeliness, can overcome the deficiency in the record on appeal.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)