[G.R. No. L-37630. June 19, 1975.

]
CATALINO LACIFICAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION, NOW FIRST DIVISION) PURIFICACION LOZADA and EUGENIANO LOREDO, JR., respondents.

Jocon C. Espino for petitioner. Teofilo G. Leonidas, Jr. for private respondents.
SYNOPSIS This is a petition to reconsider a resolution of respondent Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner's appeal from a decision of a Court of Agrarian Relations on the ground that petitioner's motion was not filed within the reglementary period as prescribed by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 5434. Respondent Court of Appeals based its resolution on the fact that the body of the notice of appeal did not contain the date of receipt of the decision appealed from. An examination, however, of the disputed pleading shows that the verification accompanying the notice of appeal did state the date, and that it was filed within the prescribed period. The Supreme Court ruled that a statement of verification is a part of a notice of appeal and that petitioner therefore complied with the provisions of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 5434. Writ granted, and respondent Court of Appeals ordered to give due course to petitioner's appeal. SYLLABUS 1.APPEAL; NOTICE OF APPEAL; MATERIAL DATA RULE; VERIFICATION IS PART OF NOTICE OF APPEAL — The verification accompanying a notice of appeal ispart of the notice of appeal. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; INCLUSION OF MATERIAL DATA IN THE VERIFICATION IS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE. — Even if the date of receipt of a decision appealed from is not stated in the body of the notice of appeal, a statement of such receipt in the verification accompanying the notice of appeal is sufficient to establish receipt of notice and should not be a cause to dismiss an appeal on the ground that it does not contain material data to show that it was perfected on time.

DECISION

CONCEPCION, JR., J p: This is a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to compel the respondent Court of Appeals to reconsider its order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and to give due course to said appeal.

a statement of such receipt is included in the verification 8 accompanying the notice of appeal. that the appeal was not perfected on time". the writ prayed for is granted. 2. exempt from paying the docket fee.Annex "A". Antonio and Aquino. making known his intention to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. Fernando (Chairman). and the plaintiff in CAR Case No. 3 The petitioner filed a motion dated December 15. On August 23. consequently. and the resolutions dismissing the appeal and denying the motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside. however. the petitioner through his counsel. 1973. petitioner therefore did comply with the provisions of Section 3 of R. the Court RESOLVED to CONSIDER the appeal in this case DISMISSED. 10. it appearing from the face of the notice of appeal. . 7 The respondent Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal "it appearing from the face of the notice of appeal. which he had filed against the said private respondents before the Court of Agrarian Relations. praying that the resolution of this Court dismissing the instant appeal for failure to pay docket fee within the reglementary period. the respondent Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal for failure to pay the docket fee within the reglementary period. This resolution is manifestly based upon the fact that the body of the notice of appeal filed by the petitioner does not contain a material date — the date when petitioner received a copy of the decision appealed from — to show that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period. Jr. p. filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Agrarian Relations. 1972. An examination of the disputed pleading. 1972. 1972 seeking the reconsideration of the order of dismissal claiming that the trial court had allowed him to litigate as pauper and.A. 4 On April 2. 2153.Idem. the Court of Agrarian Relations rendered a decision in said case adverse to the petitioner and in favor of the respondent landowners. that the appeal was not perfected on time. Iloilo 1969. 1972. be reconsidered on the ground that appellant was allowed to appeal as pauper litigant by the trial court. Inasmuch as the verification is a part of the notice of appeal. Accordingly. in part as follows: "Considering the motion. filed by counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. 5434. will show that while the date of receipt of the decision appealed from is not stated in the body of the notice of appeal. 1972. 2 On November 21. No. Branch I. Footnotes 1. Iloilo City. likewise dated September 25. however. 5434. was sent to the Court of Appeals by registered mail. Barredo.The petitioner is an agricultural tenant of private respondents Purificacion Lozada and Eugeniano Loredo. JJ. The respondent Court of Appeals is ordered to give due course to the petitioner's appeal. the respondent Court of Appeals issued a resolution which reads." 5 A motion to reconsider this resolution was filed by the petitioner 6 but was denied by the respondent Court. p. 3. 3. p. 1.. as required by Section 3 of Republic Act No.CA Rollo. Rollo. concur. On September 26. 1972. SO ORDERED. 1 A similar notice of appeal. A copy of the decision was received by petitioner's counsel on September 22.

Filipino. after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law. pp.CA Rollo. 1972. That from said decision. ESPINO. 17-21."I.Annex "B". 1972 on September 22.4. 11. pp. 7. JOCON C. the herein plaintiff is appealing the same to the Court of Appeals and that this notice of appeal is filed within the period fixed under Republic Act No. 5434." . 6. Rollo. 23. That I received the copy of the decision rendered by this Honorable Court dated August 23.Idem. 5. lawyer. 4-12. p. deposes and says: 1. — That I am the counsel for the plaintiff in the above entitled case. 8. p. of legal age.Idem.