Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > September 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24934 September 28, 1968 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24934. September 28, 1968.]

J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, defendant, CORNELIO S. RUPERTO, Respondent-Appellant.

Araneta, Mendoza & Papa for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cornelio S. Ruperto for and in his own behalf as defendant-appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; PERIOD TO APPEAL FROM ORDER OF CONTEMPT. — The appeal from an order finding a party guilty of contempt may be taken as in criminal cases necessarily resulting in the periods provided for such type of litigations being applicable. The period, as provided in Section 6, Rule 122 of the rules of Court, is fifteen days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or order appealed from.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPEAL WAS FILED LATE IN INSTANT CASE. — The order finding respondent-appellant guilty of contempt having been received on October 26, 1964, the 15-day period within which to appeal from said order, ended on November 10, 1964. It was not until November 12, 1964, that he filed a motion for reconsideration. It was much too late. Due to failure to do so within the time allowed by law, the order finding him guilty of contempt assumed finality. It could no longer be the subject of an appeal.


R E S O L U T I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


Respondent-appellant, counsel of defendant Raymundo Familara before the lower court, 1 was found guilty by the then Judge Hermogenes Caluag of contempt of court "for hurling false and malicious charges" against it in an order dated October 16, 1964. The punishment imposed is a fine of P500.00. 2 On November 12, 1964, respondent Ruperto filed a motion for reconsideration of the above order holding him liable for contempt. 3 Such motion for reconsideration was denied by the lower court in an order of December 7, 1964, as a result of which he filed a notice of appeal to this Court on December 15, 1964. 4 In an order of January 27, 1965, the lower court denied the appeal for having been filed outside the reglementary period. 5 There was a motion for the reconsideration of the above order under date of March 22, 1965, 6 but the new presiding Judge, the Honorable Placido C. Ramos, denied such motion on the ground that the court was without power "to set aside the order of October 16, 1964, because of its finality, . . . ." 7 From such order of denial, a notice of appeal to this Court was filed on April 28, 1965. 8

As early as August 25, 1965, a motion to dismiss appeal was filed by petitioner-appellee J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. In such motion, it was recited that respondent-appellant Ruperto received the order of October 16, 1964 on October 26, 1964. It was not until November 12, 1964 that he filed a motion for its reconsideration. As noted, such motion was denied for lack of merit. 9 Then, as above noted, came respondent-appellant’s notice of appeal which was denied in an order of January 27, 1965, wherein the lower court categorically stated that as he only had up to November 10, 1964, the copy of the order finding him guilty of contempt having been served on him on October 26, 1964, the appeal had to be denied as it was filed outside the reglementary period.

It would appear, therefore, that the procedural question raised by petitioner-appellee possesses merit. Section 10 of Rule 71 is categorical. Thus: "The judgment or order of a Court of First Instance made in a case of contempt punished after written charge and hearing may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, but execution of the judgment or order shall not be suspended until a bond is filed by the person in contempt, in an amount fixed by the Court of First Instance, conditioned that if the appeal be decided against him he will abide by and perform the judgment or order. The appeal may be taken as in criminal cases."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is clear, therefore, that the appeal may be taken as in criminal cases necessarily resulting in the periods provided for such type of litigations being applicable. What is that period? The law is unmistakable. Thus: "An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be interrupted from the time a motion for new trial is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the defendant or his attorney." 10

The computation made by both the lower court and petitioner-appellee is correct. The order finding respondent-appellant guilty of contempt having been received on October 26, 1964, the 15-day period ended on November 10, 1964. It was not until November 12, 1964 that he filed a motion for reconsideration. It was much too late. Due to failure to do so within the time allowed by law, the order finding him guilty of contempt assumed finality. It could no longer be the subject of an appeal.

WHEREFORE, the appeal from the order of October 16, 1964, is dismissed. Without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Dizon and Zaldivar, JJ., are on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Civil Case No. Q-4970, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch IV.

2. Record on Appeal, pp. 37-38.

3. Ibid, pp. 38-43.

4. Ibid, p. 44.

5. Ibid, p. 49.

6. Ibid, p. 56.

7. Ibid, pp. 62-63.

8. Ibid, pp. 63-64.

9. Ibid, p. 44.

10. Section 6, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.




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






September-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20977 September 7, 1968 - JOAQUIN P. NEMENZO v. BERNABE SABILLANO

  • G.R. No. L-28470 September 19, 1968 - REAL MONASTERIO v. DOMINGO FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24498 September 21, 1968 - TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24687 September 21, 1968 - IN RE: FONG CHOY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25135 September 21, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

  • G.R. No. L-25484 September 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVILLANO MA. MODESTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29417 September 21, 1968 - EDILBERTA P. ANOTA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO BERMUDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21303 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21942 September 23, 1968 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25791 September 23, 1968 - CARLOS B. GONZALES v. EULOGIO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-24833 September 23, 1968 - FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MERCEDES VARGAS VDA. DE SONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24202 September 23, 1968 - C.A. CHIONG SHIPPING CO., ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21070 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21402 September 23, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24303 September 23, 1968 - BEATRIZ C. ARAGONES, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-26137 September 23, 1968 - EUGENIO V. VILLANUEVA, JR. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-18010 September 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO CABILTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24656 September 25, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25031 September 25, 1968 - ISIDORO GEVEROLA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25379 September 25, 1968 - JOSE L. LACHICA, ET AL. v. JUAN E. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-22733 September 25, 1968 - SALVADOR BENEDICTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23302 September 25, 1968 - ALEJANDRO RAS v. ESTELA SUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25132 September 25, 1968 - FRANCISCO DUQUE v. GAVINA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28927 September 25, 1968 - LAGUNA COLLEGE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29193 September 26, 1968 - CIPRIANO P. MALIWANAG v. AMEURFINA MELENCIO-HERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-25531 September 26, 1968 - ELENO T. SANGALANG, SR. v. HUGO H. CAINGAT

  • G.R. No. L-21299 September 27, 1968 - ANSELMA PENDON, ET AL. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO

  • G.R. No. L-21183 September 27, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING, CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS

  • G.R. No. L-23991 September 27, 1968 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25222 September 27, 1968 - BESSIE M. GRAY, ET AL. v. VICENTE C. KIUNGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25226 September 27, 1968 - ISABELO PINZA v. TEOFILO ALDOVINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25790 September 27, 1968 - JOSE A. GARCIA v. ADELAIDA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-28493 September 27, 1968 - AGRIPINA J. VALDEZ, ET AL. v. ESTELA DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29362 September 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23958 September 28, 1968 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU v. EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24489 September 28, 1968 - AUGUSTIN GRACILLA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24503 September 28, 1968 - IN RE: LO BENG HA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24934 September 28, 1968 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25359 September 28, 1968 - ARADA LUMUNGO, JUHURI DAWA, ET AL. v. ASAAD USMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25511 September 28, 1968 - PATRICIO S. CUNANAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28246 September 28, 1968 - ROGELIO PUREZA, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-29532 September 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO OANDASAN

  • G.R. No. L-20993 September 28, 1968 - RIZAL LIGHT & ICE CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MORONG, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22110 September 28, 1968 - CRISTOBAL MARCOS, ET AL. v. MARIA JESUS DE ERQUIAGA DE BANUVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23312 September 28, 1968 - JULIO GATLABAYAN, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-23370-71 September 28, 1968 - TERESA FERRER, ET AL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23832 September 28, 1968 - PROCESO APOLEGA v. PERSEVERANDA HIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24155 September 28, 1968 - DELFIN SANTOS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO E. CHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25133 September 28, 1968 - JOSE SANTIAGO v. CELSO ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25361 September 28, 1968 - LEONARDO NAVARRO v. LUIS L. LARDIZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 September 28, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29471 September 28, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. JOAQUIN M. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21544 September 30, 1968 - J.M TUASON & CO., INC. v. ATANACIO MUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-25051 September 30, 1968 - JOSE B. ROXAS, ET AL. v. PEDRO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25150 September 30, 1968 - ANICIA CADIZ v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.