Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > December 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-45581 December 29, 1978 - ROSE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-45581. December 29, 1978.]

ROSE INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondents.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Valmonte, Peña & Marcos for Petitioner.

Porfirio M. Bautista for respondent Company.

SYNOPSIS


The trial court granted respondent up to May 30, 1976 within to file its record on appeal. On June 1, 1976, after the expiration of the first extension, the trial court granted respondent another five days from May 30, 1976 or up to June 4, 1976. But respondent filed its record on appeal, consisting of 12 pages, only on June 7, 1976. The trial court dismissed the appeal for having been perfected out of time. Respondent claimed that the delay was due to floods caused by a heavy downpour which occurred on May 18 and 21, 1976.

On petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to give due course to the appeal and enjoined the latter from executing its decision.

The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals and declared the trial court’s decision final and executory, holding that counsel’s negligence to file appeal on time is not a legal justification to allow or admit late appeals.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEALS; PERFECTION; GENERALLY RULES REGARDING PERFECTION OF APPEALS MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL. — The requirements of the Rules of Court regarding the period to perfect an appeal are not only mandatory but are likewise jurisdictional.

2. ID.; ID.; DUE PROCESS; RIGHT TO APPEAL NOT PART OF DUE PROCESS. — The right to appeal is not a part of due process of law but merely a statutory privilege which must be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, if an appeal be not taken the reglementary period, the judgment becomes final.

3. ID.; ID.; LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF RULES TO PERFECT APPEAL; LEGAL JUSTIFICATION; PURPOSE OF ALLOWING APPEALS PERFECTED OUT OF TIME. — The more liberal interpretation of the Rules of Court evolved out of jurisprudence, as regards the period to perfect an appeal recognizes the trial court’s power and discretion to extend the period for filing the record on appeal in the interest of justice if it appears that the appellant does not have sufficient time to prepare and file it within the period prescribed by law, "either because the remaining period is very short, or the record on appeal is voluminous, or because of some other justifiable reason, provided the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the period fixed by law." However, the court’s discretion is not unconditional. "Interest of justice" cannot be invoked against the rule fixing the period within which to appeal without legal justification to warrant such action.

4. ID.; ID.; SUSPENSION OF THE RULES. — In those cases were the Supreme Court justified a suspension of the Rules to afford litigant an opportunity to prosecute his appeal filed out of time, emphasis was stressed on the merit of the appeal to merit consideration from the appellant court.

5. ID.; ID.; NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL NOT GROUND TO ADMIT APPEAL PERFECTED OUT OF TIME. — Negligence of counsel resulting in the failure to file appeal on time is not a legal justification to allow or admit late appeals.

6. ID.; ID.; DILATORY APPEALS SERVE NO PURPOSE. — Where the appeal of respondent, even if given due course, will only delay the administration of justice, because said respondent’s solidary liability with the principal debtor is clear and it cannot be reasonably expected that the findings and conclusions of the trial court which are apparently correct will be modified substantially to warrant a different result, the allowance of the appeal, which was filed out of time, will serve no useful purpose.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDEZ, J.:


This is a petition for review by certiorari of the February 1, 1977 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-05821 1 which set aside its decision of November 3, 1976 dismissing the appeal of the private respondent, Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc. 2

On May 7, 1975 petitioner, Rose Industries, Inc., instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Nemesio Azcueta, Sr., doing business under the name "Malayan Trading" and respondent Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc. docketed therein as Civil Case No. 21248, Branch XV. The complaint was for collection of a sum of money against the principal defendant Azcueta and against the herein respondent Sentinel as surety.

Upon agreement of the parties, the case was decided on the basis of their pleadings and memoranda by the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The decision in favor of Rose Industries, Inc. was rendered on December 29, 1975. A copy of said decision was received by Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc. on February 5, 1976.

On March 3, 1976 respondent Sentinel filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision. The motion was denied by the trial court on April 12, 1976. The order of denial was received by respondent Sentinel on May 6, 1976.

On May 7, 1976 respondent Sentinel filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond together with a motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal until May 30, 1976. Acting upon the motion, the trial court granted the respondent Sentinel up to May 30, 1976 within which to file its record on appeal.

On June 1, 1976, after the expiration of the first extension granted by the trial court, respondent Sentinel again filed a second motion for extension of time within which to file its record on appeal. The trial court granted the motion and gave respondent Sentinel five (5) days from May 30, 1976 within which to file its record on appeal. The last day for filing the record on appeal was, therefore, on June 4, 1976. However, the respondent Sentinel filed its record on appeal consisting of twelve (12) pages only on June 7, 1976.chanrobles law library : red

The petitioner opposed the approval of the record on appeal on the ground that the same was filed out of time.

The respondent Sentinel filed a rejoinder on July 25, 1976 alleging that the delay in the submission of the record on appeal was due to the rains and flood caused by typhoon "Didang." The trial court issued its order dated July 28, 1976 dismissing the appeal of Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc. for failure to file the record on appeal on time.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by respondent Sentinel but the same was denied by the trial court in its order dated August 23, 1976. The decision having become final and executory, a writ of execution was issued by the trial court. 3

The Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc. filed on September 1, 1976 a petition for mandamus with writ of certiorari and preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals which granted the petition for preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond of P1,000.00.

On November 3, 1976 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for mandamus with writ of certiorari and preliminary injunction and ordered the dissolution of the preliminary injunction. 4

The Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals issued on November 10, 1976 an order restraining the execution of the decision of the trial court.

On February 1, 1977 the Court of Appeals promulgated its resolution now subject of this petition, setting aside its decision of November 3, 1976 and ordering the trial court to give due course to respondent Sentinel’s appeal and maintained the restraining order of November 10, 1976.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The only issue is whether or not the appeal of the respondent Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc. which was admittedly perfected out of time should be given due course.

It has been generally held that the requirements of the Rules of Court regarding the period to perfect an appeal are not only mandatory but are likewise jurisdictional. 5

In Garganta, Et Al., v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 6 the Supreme Court ruled that "An allowance by a Court of First Instance of an appeal which was not taken within the reglementary period; a denial by the same Court of a motion to dismiss an appeal taken beyond such period; and a denial by the Court of Appeals to dismiss such appeal, do not render the appeal valid, effective and legal. If an appeal be not taken within the reglementary period, the judgment becomes final . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The right to appeal is not a part of due process of law. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. 7

There has, however, evolved out of jurisprudence a more liberal interpretation of the Rules of Court as regards the period to perfect an appeal. Thus, as early as July 18, 1946, this Court in the case of Moya v. Barton 8 recognized the court’s power and discretion to extend the period for filing the record on appeal in the interest of justice if it appears that the appellant does not have sufficient time to prepare and file it within the period prescribed by law, "either because the remaining period is very short, or the record on appeal is voluminous, or because of some other justifiable reason, provided the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the period fixed by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is true that the trial court is vested with discretion to allow or admit an appeal filed out of time. However, this discretion is not unconditional. "Interest of justice" cannot be invoked against the rule fixing the period within which to appeal without legal justification to warrant such action. 9

In those cases where the Supreme Court justified a suspension of the Rules to afford a litigant an opportunity to prosecute his appeal filed out of time, emphasis was stressed on the merit of the appeal to justify consideration from the appellate tribunal. 10

In the instant case, there is no showing of a legal justification to sanction the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated February 1, 1977 allowing the appeal of the private respondent Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc.

It is undisputed that the first extension of time to file the record on appeal of the respondent Sentinel was until May 30, 1976. The record shows that no record on appeal was filed on or before 30 May 1976. Instead, a second motion for extension was filed on June 1, 1976, two days after May 30, 1976, the last day for filing the record on appeal. Evidently, therefore, the trial court erred in granting to the respondent Sentinel another five (5) days within which to file its record on appeal. The second motion for extension was filed when there was no more period to extend.chanrobles law library

Significantly, respondent Sentinel did not avail of the five (5) day period granted by the trial court, assuming that the same was validly issued. Said respondent Sentinel filed its record on appeal only on June 7, 1976, three days after the five (5) day period had expired. No reason, therefore, now exists for the further liberality granted by the Court of Appeals to respondent Sentinel.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The excuse of the respondent Sentinel that it failed to file its record on appeal on time because of the floods caused by typhoon "Didang" has no merit. Metro Manila experienced a heavy down pour on May 18 and 21, 1976. 11 The respondent Sentinel had ample time to prepare its record on appeal after May 21, 1976. There is no reason why respondent Sentinel could not have filed its record on appeal on time when the same, as evident from the record, consists merely of twelve (12) pages. Undoubtedly, with the exercise of ordinary diligence, the respondent Sentinel could have seasonably filed its record on appeal.

Counsel for Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc., alleged in the trial court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"3. That the undersigned, however, miscalculated the time he needs for the preparation of his pleadings for the Court of Appeals and he overshot his allocated period by two days. . .. (Annex K-1)" 12

The real cause, therefore, for the failure of respondent Sentinel to file the record on appeal on time was the negligence of its counsel.

We have taken the pain of going through the pleadings filed in the trial court to find if there is any valid reason to reverse the decision sought to be appealed from to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The trial court decided the case on the basis of the pleadings. There is nothing therein to warrant a reversal of the decision.

The surety bond executed by Nemesio Azcueta and the Sentinel Insurance Company, Inc. reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"S U R E T Y B O N D

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That we, MALAYAN TRADING represented herein by its Manager, NEMESIO AZCUETA with office address at No. 5873 Zobel Roxas Avenue, Makati, Rizal principal and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of laws of the Philippines, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto ROSE INDUSTRIES, INC., Mandaluyong, Rizal in the sum of Pesos TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY, P250,000.00), Philippine Currency, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE AS FOLLOWS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘To fully and faithfully guarantee faithful compliance with the terms and condition of the revolving credit line granted by the herein OBLIGEE to the herein PRINCIPAL, a copy of which is hereto attached and forming part thereof.’

WHEREAS, the ROSE INDUSTRIES, INC. requires said principal to give a good and sufficient bond in the above stated sum to secure the full and faithful performance on his part of said obligation.

NOW, THEREFORE, if the above bounded principal shall in all respects duly and fully observe and perform all and singular the aforesaid covenants, conditions and agreements to the true intent and meaning thereof, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.

Liability of surety on this bond will expire on November 15, 1975 and said bond will be cancelled ten DAYS after its expiration, unless surety is notified of any existing obligations thereunder.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have set our hands and signed our names on the 15th day of November, 1974 at the City of Manila.

IN THE PRESENCE OF: MALAYAN TRADING

Illegible By:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

_____________________ SGD.: NEMESIO AZCUETA

NEMESIO AZCUETA

(Principal)

Illegible

_____________________ SENTINEL INSURANCE

COMPANY, INC.

SGD.: HERNAN P. SAN LUIS

HERNAN P. SAN LUIS

(SURETY)" 13

The solidary liability of the respondent Sentinel is clear. There is no question that Nemesio Azcueta failed to comply with his obligation to Rose Industries, Inc..

The appeal, therefore, of the respondent Sentinel, even if given due course, will serve no other purpose but merely to delay the administration of justice. The allowance of an appeal serves no useful purpose when it cannot be reasonably expected that the findings and conclusions of the trial court which are apparently correct will be modified substantially to warrant a different result. 14

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted and the resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-05821 is set aside. The decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on November 3, 1976 is reinstated. The decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XV, in Civil Case No. 21248 entitled "Rose Industries, Inc. v. Nemesio Azcueta, Sr., Et Al.," is declared final and executory. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Santos and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Resolution, Rollo, pp. 43-49. Written by Justice Andres Reyes and concurred in by Justice B. S. de la Fuente and Justice Delfin Fl. Batacan.

2. Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 22-26. Penned by Justice Godofredo P. Ramos and concurred in by Justice Andres Reyes and Justice B. S. de la Fuente.

3. Annex "A", Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 22-23.

4. Ibid., Rollo, p. 26.

5. Miranda v. Guanzon, Et Al., 92 Phil. 168, 171.

6. 105 Phil. 412, 417.

7. Velasco v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., L-31019, 51 SCRA 439; Bello v. Fernando, 4 SCRA 135; Santiago v. Valenzuela, 78 Phil. 397.

8. 76 Phil. 831, 832.

9. Trans-Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 78 SCRA 154, 161.

10. Ong Tiao Seng v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 81 SCRA 417, 423.

11. Certification of PAGASA, Annex "G", Rollo, p. 50.

12. Rollo. p. 26.

13. Annex "B" to Comment on Petition, Rollo, pp. 75-76.

14. Ong Ching v. Hon. Jose Ramolete, Et Al., 51 SCRA 13, 20.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-27909 December 5, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO PUESCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40872 December 5, 1978 - MELECIA M. MACABUHAY v. JUAN L. MANUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40008 December 8, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME SALDUA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 595-CFI December 11, 1978 - QUINTIN STA. MARIA v. ALBERTO UBAY

  • G.R. No. L-33079 December 11, 1978 - PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47651 December 11, 1978 - SALVADOR AMBROSIO, ET AL. v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 898-MJ December 14, 1978 - CARLOS L. JIMENA v. ORLANDO B. RELANO

  • A.C. No. 1500 December 14, 1978 - ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN v. AMADO S. CENIZA

  • A.M. No. P-1730 December 14, 1978 - SATURNINO PASCUA v. BERNABE ODERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30417 December 14, 1978 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO FORMOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33567 December 14, 1978 - ROMAN JACINTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44627 December 14, 1978 - LUCIA S. PAJARITO v. ALBERTO V. SEÑERIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45966 December 14, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO A. MARIANO

  • G.R. No. L-48074 December 14, 1978 - PON’S REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48214 December 19, 1978 - ILDEFONSO SANTIAGO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. P-220 December 20, 1978 - JULIO ZETA v. FELICISIMO MALINAO

  • Adm. Case No. 1371 December 29, 1978 - JOSE A. ARFAPO v. TEODORO V. NANO, SR.

  • A.M. No. P-1430 December 29, 1978 - CIRENIA JARAMILLO v. FILOMENA MAGO VISTRO

  • A.C. No. 1924 December 29, 1978 - ARTEMIO T. REALINO v. FRANCISCO M. VILLAMOR

  • G.R. Nos. L-31506, L-31507 and L-31508 December 29, 1978 - JOSE R. OLIVEROS v. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32988 December 29, 1978 - EVARISTO SALVORO, ET AL. v. PABLO D. TAÑEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38463 December 29, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN F. LACUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42203 December 29, 1978 - AURORA F. DIZON v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42598 December 29, 1978 - PEDRO CASTRO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42625 December 29, 1978 - JUANITA VDA. DE PAGALING v. PHILIPPINE PACKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42737 December 29, 1978 - EDUARDO HERNANDEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42917 December 29, 1978 - VICTORINO OCTAVIO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42990 December 29, 1978 - VIRGILIO ZAFRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43066 December 29, 1978 - CRESENCIANO G. LEGASPI v. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43150 December 29, 1978 - ENRIQUE LIM, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43270 December 29, 1978 - SALVADOR M. YUTUC v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-43317 December 29, 1978 - JULIA P. PANTOJA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45581 December 29, 1978 - ROSE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47469 December 29, 1978 - DOMINGO M. LOPEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.