Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29416)
Facts:
On November 12, 1965, the Court of First Instance of Abra rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 374, declaring Adoracion Valera de Bringas as the acknowledged natural child of Francisco Valera, and directing Virgilio Valera, Celso Valera, and Mercedes Angco Vda. de Valera to recognize her as such, while dismissing defendants’ counterclaim and cross-claim. Copy of the decision was served on November 15, 1965; Celso Valera filed his notice of appeal and appeal bond on December 14, 1965 and requested a thirty (30)-day extension to file his record on appeal, which the trial court granted on January 14, 1966.
Celso Valera filed an amended record on appeal after the trial court ordered him on March 18, 1966 to amend it, and the amended record was approved on June 28, 1966. Because the amended record did not, on its face, show when the original record on appeal was filed within the extended period, the plaintiffs-appellees moved for dismissal in the Court of Appeals, which eventually dismissed the appeal on July 16, 1968 pursuant to Rule 50, section 1(a) in relation to Rule 41, section 6, prompting this certiorari petition.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for failure of the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.
- Whether the omission of the date of filing of the original record on appeal in the amended record on appeal was cured by the trial court clerk’s certification or by stamping.
Ruling:
The Court held that the dismissal was proper and affirmed the Court of Appeals resolution, with costs against Celso Valera. It ruled that the amended record’s failure to show on its face that the original record was filed within the extension granted by the trial court was fatal.
The Court further held that the trial court clerk’s certification regarding the original filing date did not cure the defect, because Rule 41, section 6 requires that the record on appeal itself include the data showing timely perfection, and the appellant bore the mandatory, jurisdictional burden to comply.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized that the requirements in Section 6 of Rule 41—including that the record on appeal contain “such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time”—are mandatory and jurisdictional. Since the record on appeal is not forwarded in ordinary appeals to the appellate court, the appellate court must rely on what appears in the record; otherwise, it cannot verify whether the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.
The Court found that the case involved an amended record on appeal that was submitted subsequently and thus did not show on its face the filing date of the original record within the extended period; the trial court order requiring amendment did not come until March 18, 1966. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the appealed case, warranting dismissal, and it rejected the argument that certification could restore jurisdiction once lost.
Doctrine:
- The requirements under Rule 41, section 6 that the record on appeal include data showing timely perfection are mandatory and jurisdictional.
- Failure of the record on appeal, on its face, to show that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction and compels dismissal.
- Trial court certification or other extraneous proof cannot cure a jurisdictional defect when the record on appeal itself fails to show timely perfection.
- Jurisdictional defects in the perfection of an appeal may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings.