G.R. No. L-31018 - Velasco vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31018)

Factual Background

The petitioners sued Magdalena Estate, Inc. in Civil Case No. 7761 for specific performance of an alleged deed of sale of a residential lot. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City dismissed the complaint on November 3, 1968 on the ground that the alleged purchase and sale agreement “was not perfected.” The petitioners perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals and received notice on November 18, 1968 to file forty printed copies of the record within sixty days. The petitioners’ counsel alleges that a motion for extension of time was registry-mailed on January 15, 1969; the printed record was filed in the Court of Appeals on February 10, 1969.

Trial Court Proceedings

The court a quo found that no perfected contract of sale existed because the parties did not agree on the manner and timing of payments. The complaint itself acknowledged unresolved terms on the completion of the down payment and installments. The trial court therefore sustained the defense that the alleged contract was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and entered judgment dismissing the action.

Perfection of Appeal and Initial Appellate Action

After receipt of the notice on November 18, 1968, the sixtieth-day period for filing the printed record expired on January 17, 1969. The petitioners’ counsel caused a registry-mailed motion for extension to be allegedly mailed January 15, 1969, seeking thirty days’ additional time due to mechanical failure and heavy work at the printer. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss on February 8, 1969. By resolution dated February 25, 1969 the Court of Appeals denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss, granted the petitioners’ registry-mailed motion for a thirty-day extension from January 15, 1969, and admitted the printed record then filed.

Motion for Reconsideration and Court of Appeals’ June 28, 1969 Resolution

The respondent moved for reconsideration, asserting that the registry receipts and registry-mailed motion were false and that the Makati Post Office records did not show mailing on January 15, 1969. After opposing pleadings and submission of registry receipts and an affidavit of the petitioners’ mailing clerk, the Court of Appeals, by resolution of June 28, 1969, granted the motion for reconsideration, found that the registry receipts and envelopes were not posted on January 15, 1969, and dismissed the appeal for failure to file the printed record within the period authorized by the court. The appellate court required counsel to show cause why he should not be suspended for deceit and directed the provincial fiscal to investigate the mailing clerk and a Makati letter carrier.

Findings Underlying the Court of Appeals’ Decision

The Court of Appeals based its disposition upon official certifications from the Makati Post Office and an affidavit of letter carrier Flaviano Malindog. The postmasters certified that registry numbers 0215 and 0216 did not appear in their records as posted on January 15, 1969 and that the registry bill books for the relevant dates did not reflect those postings. Malindog’s affidavit recounted that on February 7, 1969 a person named Juanito D. Quiachon sought his help to produce registry receipts bearing a January 15, 1969 postmark, that Malindog obtained old registry receipts, numbered them 0215 and 0216, placed matching numbers on envelopes, and postmarked them January 15, 1969 although the correct date of posting was February 7, 1969; Malindog stated he wrote the correct date on the back of one or both receipts and entered February 7, 1969 in the registry bill books.

Criminal Investigation and Information

Following the appellate court’s directive, the First Assistant Fiscal of Rizal found a prima facie case against Malindog and filed an information for falsification of public documents alleging that Malindog, in conspiracy with an unidentified John Doe, falsified two registry receipts and postmarked envelopes to make it appear they were posted on January 15, 1969 when in truth they were posted on February 7, 1969. The complaint against the petitioners’ mailing clerk Quiachon was dismissed by the fiscal for lack of sufficient evidence.

Petitioners’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

The petitioners asserted that the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion because: (a) the registry receipts and postmarks established timely mailing and filing; (b) the printed record was filed within the extension granted by the Court of Appeals; (c) the appellate court ignored the mailing clerk’s affidavit, registry receipts and envelopes and relied unduly on Malindog’s affidavit and postmasters’ certifications; (d) Section 1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court does not enumerate failure to file the printed record on appeal as a ground for dismissal; (e) the alleged mismailing of a motion for extension is not a basis for dismissal; (f) the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to revoke an extension it had granted on a ground not specified in Section 1, Rule 50; and (g) an appellee may waive objections to an appeal by allowing printing and approval of the record.

Procedural Posture and Standard of Review

The petition was brought as certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65, but the petitioners recognized that some objections involved reviewable questions proper to an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45; they asked the Court to treat the petition as an appeal by way of certiorari if appropriate. The Supreme Court indicated that certain objections were matters of correct construction of procedural rules and thus reviewable under Rule 45, but proceeded to entertain and resolve both procedural and discretionary assignments within the petition.

Supreme Court’s Appraisal of the Facts and Credibility

The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals’ factual determinations. The Court accorded weight to the postmasters’ official certifications and to Malindog’s affidavit. It observed that Malindog’s sworn statement was a declaration against his own interest and therefore carried credibility greater than the self-serving affidavit of the petitioners’ mailing clerk. The Court noted that the inquest fiscal’s findings supported the conclusion that someone induced Malindog to issue false registry receipts, and that the registry receipts and post office records rendered the petitioners’ assertion of timely mailing improbable.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis on Procedural Duty and Dismissal

The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege and that the Rules of Court impose on an appellant the duty to file forty printed copies of the record within sixty days from notice of receipt of the record by the Court of Appeals, as provided in Sec. 5, Rule 46. The Supreme Court held that because the petitioners failed to comply with that duty and because there was a finding of deliberate effort to mislead the appellate court in securing an extension, the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal. The Court further observed that dismissals have been ordered on grounds not specifically enumerated in Section 1, Rule 50, and that a motion for extension must be made before the expiration of the period sought to be extended, citing Baquiran v. Court of Appeals. The Court declined to treat the registry receipts and postmarks as creating an unrebuttable presumption of mailing on January 15, 1969, because the evidence produced by the post office and Malindog rebutted that assertion.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court concluded that the trial court’s judgment was substantially correct on the merits and upheld the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the printed record within the auth

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-31018)

Parties and Posture

Lorenzo Velasco and Socorro J. Velasco, petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing a Court of Appeals resolution dated June 28, 1969 dismissing their appeal for failure to seasonably file the printed record on appeal.
Honorable Court of Appeals and Magdalena Estate, Inc., respondents, were the appellee and the court whose resolution was attacked respectively.
The petition sought review of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petitioners' appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City in Civil Case No. 7761.
The Court of First Instance had dismissed the petitioners' complaint for specific performance on the ground that the alleged sale agreement "was not perfected."

Key Facts

The trial court found no perfected contract of sale for a 2,059-square-meter lot because the parties lacked agreement on the manner of payment.
The petitioners timely perfected their appeal to the Court of Appeals and received notice on November 18, 1968 to file their printed record on appeal within sixty days.
The petitioners allegedly registry-mailed on January 15, 1969 a "Motion For Extension of Time To File Printed Record on Appeal" and later filed their printed record on February 10, 1969.
Registry receipts numbered 0215 and 0216 and envelopes stamped January 15, 1969 were produced by petitioners as proof of mailing.
The respondent obtained certifications from Makati post offices and an affidavit of letter carrier Flaviano Malindog asserting that the registry receipts had been falsified and that the mailings occurred on February 7, 1969.

Lower Court Ruling

The Court of First Instance rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for specific performance because the alleged purchase and sale agreement "was not perfected."
The trial court found absence of meeting of minds on payment terms to be fatal to formation of a binding contract.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The Court of Appeals initially, by resolution of February 25, 1969, denied respondent's motion to dismiss and granted petitioners' registry-mailed motion for a thirty-day extension from January 15, 1969, admitting the printed record.
Upon respondent's motion for reconsideration supported by post office certifications and Malindog's affidavit, the Court of Appeals issued its June 28, 1969 resolution granting reconsideration and dismissing the appeal for failure to file the printed record within the authorized period.
The Court of Appeals ordered Atty. Patrocino R. Corpuz to show cause why he should not be suspended and directed the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal to investigate and file appropriate criminal action against Juanito D. Quiachon and Flaviano O. Malindog.
A subsequent resolution of September 5, 1969 denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration but accepted Atty. Corpuz's explanation regarding suspension.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for late filing of the printed record on appeal.
Whether registry receipts and postmarks stamped January 15, 1969 created an unrebuttable presumption of timely mailing.
Whether failure to file the printed record on appeal within sixty days warranted dismissal of an otherwise perfected appeal.

Petit