G.R. No. 126781 - People vs. Doca

On March 8, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment in civil case No. 8465 in favor of petitioner Alfredo Miranda against respondent David Guanzon.
The respondent received a copy of the judgment on March 17, 1951.

On April 5, 1951 – nineteen days after the receipt of the judgment copy – the respondent filed a notice of appeal accompanied by:

On April 7, 1951, an order was entered by the court approving the record on appeal and directing the clerk to forward it along with all corresponding evidence to the Court of Appeals.

On June 9, 1951, petitioner filed a motion in the Court of Appeals seeking to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the respondent failed to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period prescribed by the Rules of Court.
On June 12, 1951, respondent filed an opposition asserting that:

The appeal had been perfected in due time.
The case did not fall within the ambit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Petitioner had waived his right to object earlier, as his objection was only raised after the record on appeal had been printed and certified.

Noting that petitioner failed to object to the approval of the record on appeal while the case was still in the lower court.
Observing that the filing of the motion to dismiss by petitioner came only after the record had been printed.
Holding that the absence of objection in the lower court constituted a waiver of the right to raise the issue for the first time in the appellate court.
Denying the motion to dismiss on the grounds that dismissal at the present stage was prejudicial to the appellant.

On July 12, 1951, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied.
Petitioner then elevated the issue by filing a petition for certiorari challenging the resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The underlying case was within the ambit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which prescribes that:

An appeal should be perfected in the ordinary manner but within fifteen days.
Instead of a record on appeal, the original record of the case is to be transmitted to the appellate court.

The respondent’s appeal was perfected like an ordinary case by filing a record on appeal, but crucially, the notice of appeal was filed after the prescribed fifteen-day period—specifically on the nineteenth day from the receipt of the judgment.

Whether the failure of the respondent to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period (i.e., filing the notice of appeal after the fifteen-day deadline) renders the appeal void or outside the jurisdiction of the lower court.
Whether the petitioner’s failure to object to the approval of the record on appeal in the lower court constitutes a waiver of his right to raise the issue of untimely appeal perfection in the Court of Appeals.
Whether the subsequent certification of the record on appeal and printing of the records can restore the jurisdiction that was lost due to the late filing of the notice of appeal and appeal bond.