[ G.R. No. L-44823. June 27, 1985 ] 221 Phil. 597
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. L-44823. June 27, 1985 ]
VICENTE OUANO (DECEASED) SUBSTITUTED BY QUERINA ARRAZ OUANO AND VICENTE ARRAZ OUANO, JR., ANNA LORAINE OUANO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AND HON. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, FE JUSTINIANA ESPINA-CABRERA, CRISTOBAL, CESAR, ISIDRO, FULGENCIO, ROLANDO, EDIPOLO, LILIAN, EDILBERTO, RAYMUNDO AND LUCIA, ALL SURNAMED ESPINA AND ARSENIO OUANO, RESPONDENTS. R E S O L U T I O N
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Petitioner Vicente Ouano, now deceased, filed during his lifetime, with the then Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI, an action against his father Arsenio Ouano, and his uncles and aunts, all private respondents herein, for the recovery of the paraphernal property of his late mother (Civil Case No. R-14254). After trial, the lower Court dismissed the complaint. He then filed a petition for leave to appeal as pauper, which was granted. He did not file a record on appeal. Private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal for failure of petitioner to file his record on appeal within the reglementary period. The lower Court granted the motion and disallowed the appeal. Petitioner then filed with respondent Appellate Court a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus contending that as a pauper litigant he was not required to submit a separate record on appeal under Section 16, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, and prayed that the trial Court be ordered to elevate the entire original records of Civil Case No. R-14254 for purposes of has appeal. Respondent Appellate Court dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration as well. Petitioner elevated the case to this Court in a petition for review on certiorari filed in forma pauperis. This First Division treated the petition as a special civil action, required the parties to submit simultaneous memoranda, and referred the case to the Court en banc.[1] The Court en banc referred the case back to this Division. On May 17, 1980, petitioner died and was substituted by his surviving spouse Querina Arraz Ouano, and their two (2) minor children, Vicente Ouano, Jr. and Anna Loraine Ouano. The widow was subsequently appointed guardian-ad-litem of the minors by this Court.[2] The sole issue for consideration is whether or not a party litigant allowed by the lower Court to appeal as a pauper is exempt from filing a record on appeal. Under Section 16 of Rule 41,[3] taken together with Section 22, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,[4] a pauper litigant is only exempt from filing a printed record on appeal. That was the ruling of this Court in Toribio vs. Bidin, 96 SCRA 361 1980
“As will be seen, a pauper litigant is exempted from submitting a printed record on appeal. Both in appeals by paupers and non-paupers, a record on appeal should be submitted. The only difference is that in the case of the pauper, the latter need not print it. Typewritten or mimeographed copies of the record on appeal will suffice.”
Be that as it may, considering that a record on appeal is no longer required for an appeal under Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Bg. 129[5] and Section 18 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by this Court on January 11, 1983,[6] which being procedural in nature, have a retroactive effect,[7] petitioners may be allowed to appeal specially in order that, as pauper litigants, they may be granted their fullest day in Court. ACCORDINGLY, the assailed Decision of the respondent Appellate Court of September 1, 1976 and its Resolution of September 27, 1976 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said decisions are hereby set aside, and the Branch of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu to which this case will be assigned is directed to elevate the entire record of Civil Case No. R-14254 to the Intermediate Appellate Court for purposes of petitioners’ appeal. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, and Alampay, JJ., concur.