Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1955 > May 1955 Decisions > G.R. No. L-7383 May 27, 1955 - XERXES G. GARCIA v. DAMIANA SANTICO

097 Phil 108:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-7383. May 27, 1955.]

XERXES G. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAMIANA SANTICO, Defendant-Appellee.

Garcia, Garcia & Dizon for Appellant.

Vicente R. Macasaet for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; APPEAL TO BE PERFECTED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM NOTICE OF JUDGMENT. — Where it is shown that appellant received copy of the judgment on September 9, 1963 and presented his motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1953, the period of 23 days had elapsed. That he was sent the first notice of the order of denial of his motion for reconsideration on October 15, 1953 so that the said notice became effective on October 20, 1953. Hence, when he presented his notice on appeal on November 18 and his record on appeal on November 20, another 28 days had expired. All in all, therefore, 51 days elapsed before he presented his record on appeal from notice of appeal. Held: The Trial Court’s counting of the date of period in which to perfect the appeal from notice of the date of denial of the motion for reconsideration not from notice of the original judgment is contrary to section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga dismissing a civil action for damages for a defamation committed by defendant against plaintiff. While the case was still in the lower court pending the approval of the record on appeal, the defendant presented a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the same was not perfected within the 30-day period prescribed by the Rules of Court. The trial court denied this motion to dismiss the appeal and approved the record on appeal giving due course to the appeal. After the plaintiff had filed his brief in this Court, and when defendant presented her brief, she again reiterated her motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the same was not perfected within the time prescribed by the Rules.

The record discloses that the plaintiff-appellant in this case received a copy of the judgment dismissing the action on September 9, 1953. On October 2, that is, 23 days after he was notified of the judgment, he presented a motion for reconsideration. This motion was denied by the court on October 14, 1953. Copy of this order was sent by registered mail to the defendant under registered letter No. 5128 on October 15, 1953. On the same date, October 15, 1953, the first registry notice, Bureau of Post form No. 1525, was sent to the plaintiff. Again on October 26, 1953, another second registry notice was sent to said plaintiff. The plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on November 18, 1953 and the record on appeal on November 20, 1953.

The plaintiff-appellant did not file an answer to the motion for dismissal filed in the trial court and does not seem to deny the facts upon which the motion for dismissal are based. Neither has he replied to the reiteration of the said motion in defendant-appellee’s brief. The sending of the first notice of the registered mail to plaintiff-appellant of the order of denial of his motion for reconsideration is proved by the certificate of the postmaster of San Fernando where the plaintiff resides. The letter was addressed to the plaintiff because he appeared personally and was not represented by any attorney of record in the court below. According to the certificate, the first notice was sent plaintiff-appellant on October 15, 1953. Under the facts above set forth which are not denied by the plaintiff-appellant, it is sufficiently shown that as he received copy of the judgment on September 9, 1953, when he presented his motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1953, a period of 23 days had elapsed. Again it is sufficiently proven that he was sent the first notice of the order of denial of his motion for reconsideration on October 15, 1953, so that the said notice became effective on October 20, 1953. Hence, when he presented his notice on appeal November 18, and his record on appeal on November 20, another period of 20 days had expired. All in all, therefore, 51 days elapsed before he presented his record on appeal and notice of appeal. The trial court evidently counted the date of the period in which to perfect the appeal not from the notice of the original judgment but from the date of denial of the motion for reconsideration, which is supposed to be October 20. This is contrary to Section 3 of Rule 41, which provides that the appeal must be made within 30 days from notice of the judgment, the time during which a motion for reconsideration is pending to be deducted in the computation of the said period.

Considering, therefore, that the notice of appeal and the record on appeal were not presented within the 30-day period prescribed by Section 3 of Rule 41, the appeal should be, as it is hereby, dismissed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.

Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7331 May 6, 1955 - CLEMENTE PASILAN v. FRANCISCO VILLAGONZA

    097 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTORIO HERNANDEZ

    097 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. L-7684 May 10, 1955 - AGRIPINO JOCSON v. ESPERIDION PRESBITERIO

    097 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-7516 May 12, 1955 - LEONOR P. REYES v. THE HONORABLE BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-8045 May 12, 1955 - VALENTINO TAYLO Y REYES v. TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

    097 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6963 May 13, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS PADIOS and FILEMON PADIOS

    097 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-7574 May 17, 1955 - FRANCISCO EPANG v. MARIA ORTIN DE LEYCO

    097 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-7862 May 17, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MAXIMO ABAÑO

    097 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-7894 May 17, 1955 - FERNANDO NIETO v. HON. BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-8276 May 17, 1955 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. HON. JOSE TEODORO

    097 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-7937 May 18, 1955 - JUANITA RONQUILLO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    097 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-7083 May 19, 1955 - JUAN EUGENIO ET AL. v. SILVINA PERDIDO

    097 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-7307 May 19, 1955 - PACITA ORTIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

    097 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-7385 May 19, 1955 - QUIRICO L. SATURNINO v. FELIZA LUZ PAULINO

    097 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-6776 May 21, 1955 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL v. UNG SIU SI TEMPLE

    097 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-7112 May 21, 1955 - TOMAS Q. SORIANO v. F. R. OMILA

    097 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-7234 May 21, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAZ M. DEL ROSARIO

    097 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-7595 May 21, 1955 - TEODORA DEMORAR v. HON. JUDGE ROMAN IBAÑEZ ET AL.

    097 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-7926 May 21, 1955 - OSCAR OLEGARIO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    097 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-7583 May 25, 1955 - JAMIE T. BUENAFLOR ET AL. v. CESARIO DE LEON

    097 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-7918 May 25, 1955 - MARIA GALASINAO v. ROSA M. AUSTRIA ET AL.

    097 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-8114 May 25, 1955 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

    097 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-8238 May 25, 1955 - CESAR M. CARANDANG v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    097 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-8806 May 25, 1955 - MARIA N. BANZON v. PEDRO ALVIAR

    097 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-6869 May 27, 1955 - SOLEDAD BELANDRES v. LOPEZ SUGAR CENTRAL MILL CO., INC.

    097 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-7224 May 27, 1955 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. A. GERGARAY TANCHINGCO

    097 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-7383 May 27, 1955 - XERXES G. GARCIA v. DAMIANA SANTICO

    097 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-7518 May 27, 1955 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. HON. MODESTO CASTILLO ET AL.

    097 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-7622 May 27, 1955 - GABRIEL MACLAN v. RUBEN GARCIA

    097 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7752 May 27, 1955 - SEC. OF AGRI. AND NAT. RESOURCES, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE, CFI OF MLA., ET AL.

    097 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-7248 May 28, 1955 - AMADO BERNARDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-8040 May 28, 1955 - VICENTE K. LAY v. ROCES HERMANOS INC., ET AL.

    097 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-7708 May 30, 1955 - JOSE MONDANO v. FERNANDO SILVOSA, ET AL.

    097 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-7738 May 30, 1955 - BALDOMERO TACAD, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA VDA. DE CEBRERO

    097 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-7959 May 30, 1955 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP., v. JUDGE OF CFI, ET AL.

    097 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-6707 May 31, 1955 - R. F. & J. ALEXANDER & CO., LTD., ET AL. v. JOSE ANG, ET AL.

    097 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-7019 May 31, 1955 - IN RE: EULOGIO S. EUSEBIO v. DOMINGO VALMORES

    097 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-7144 May 31, 1955 - FAR EASTERN EXPORT & IMPORT CO. v. LIM TECK SUAN

    097 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-7338 May 31, 1955 - PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., v. PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS ASSN.

    097 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-7358 May 31, 1955 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. AGUINALDO’S ECHAGUE, INC.

    097 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-7376 May 31, 1955 - FRANCISCO MARIANO v. APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-7614 May 31, 1955 - CONRADO POTENCIANO v. NAPOLEON DINEROS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 196

  • G.R. Nos. L-7771-73 May 31, 1955 - PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’ ASSN. v. PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

    097 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-7887 May 31, 1955 - MACLEOD & CO. OF THE PHIL. v. PROGRESSIVE FEDERATION OF LABOR

    097 Phil 205