Cabalza vs Court of Appeals

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

Cabalza vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. L-37994
October 29, 1976

Facts:

Petitioner Jesus G. Cabalza as defendant appealed per his Amended Notice of Appeal filed on June 19, 1972 "from (a) the Order, dated March 28, 1972, declaring defendant in default; (b) the ex-parte Decision of April 12, 1972 and (c) and Order, dated May 16, 1972, denying defendant's Motion to Set Aside Order of Default and for New Trial " of the Manila court of first instance, manifesting that he had earlier filed on June 2, 1972 with his original Notice of Appeal his cash appeal bond. The lower court had rendered judgment against petitioner in favor of private respondent Far East Realty Investment, Inc. sentencing petitioner inter alia to pay respondent the balance allegedly due on a P6,000-promissory note in the sum of P4,550.00 with interests and 10% attorney's fees and reversing the original judgment of October 11, 1971 of the Manila city court dismissing respondent's complaint and declaring the obligation as having been fully settled and discharged. The lower court in an extended Order of August 23, 1972 denied "for lack of factual and legal merits" respondent's "Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal and for Issuance of Writ of Execution" and having overruled respondent's objection approved as "in order" petitioner's 192-page Record on Appeal.

The record on appeal expressly shows that petitioner Cabalza in opposing respondent's motion to dismiss appeal as filed with the lower court, set forth therein the specific dates of receipt of the appealed ex-parte decision and orders. Thus, in denying respondent's said motion to dismiss appeal and for issuance of a writ of execution, the lower court expressly overruled respondent's contention.

Issue:

Whether the lower court upon the declaration in its order of approval of the record on appeals the time and order can be disputed by the adverse party.

Held:

As reaffirmed by the Court in Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals and in San Pedro vs. Court of Appeals , since the leading case of Pimentel vs. Court of Appeals as presaged by Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals, the Court has consistently ruled that where the lower court finds and declares in its order of approval of the record on appeal that it was filed "on time" or "in order" and the correctness and veracity of such finding are not impugned or disputed by the adverse party, the omissions of certain data in the record on appeal would not warrant dismissal of the appeal — "since the appellate court may properly rely on the trial court's order of approval and determination of timeliness of the appeal."

This is wholly consistent with the reason for the material data rule which is to obviate and eliminate waste of time that would be incurred by the appellate tribunal in requiring the lower court to forward the original record and in examining such record to determine the timeliness of the appeal; and where the trial court in its order approving the record on appeal finds and declares that the same was timely perfected or in order and the correctness and veracity of such finding and declaration are not disputed by the adverse party, the reason for the rule ceases because thereby the appellate court can rely thereon without the need of sending for, and of any further examination of, the original records of the case.