ManilaFIRST
DIVISION
CORNELIO
ANTIQUERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
G. R. No. 44976-R
July 31, 1974
-versus-
VICENTE
M. TUPASI,
Defendant-Appellee.
R
E S O L U T I O N
CASTRO, J.:
Cornelio
Antiquera is the plaintiff and Vicente
M. Tupasi is the defendant in Civil Case No. 226 [collection of a sum
of
money] of the Municipal Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. Decision
therein
was rendered on June 15, 1966. A copy thereof was received by Antiquera
on September 17, 1966. On September 21, 1966 he filed a motion for
reconsideration.
On January 12, 1967 the Municipal Court modified its decision by
reducing
the amount awarded to him from P500 to P100. A copy of this amended
decision
was received by him on March 7, 1967.
On March 21, 1967
he filed a "Further Motion for
Reconsideration" on the ground that the amended decision is without
basis
in fact and in law. This motion was denied on September 11, 1967.
On October 5, 1967 he perfected his appeal from
the amended decision to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Viscaya.cralaw:red
Whereupon,
defendant Tupasi moved for the dismissal
of the appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. This motion
was denied by the Court of First Instance which held that the "Further
Motion for Reconsideration" interrupted the running of the period for
appeal
as the subject thereof was the amended decision. However, the court, in
a later order dated November 13, 1968, reversed itself and dismissed
Antiquera's
appeal upon the following findings: from March 7, 1967 [date Antiquera
received a copy of the amended decision] to March 21, 1967 [date he
filed
"Further Motion for Reconsideration"], 14 days elapsed; from October 3,
1967 [date Antiquera received a copy of the order denying his "Further
Motion for Reconsideration"] to October 5, 1967 [date he perfected his
appeal], 2 more days elapsed. [An appeal from the municipal court to
the
CFI must be perfected within 15 days].cralaw:red
Antiquera impugns
this order, stating that: [1]
when a party files a motion for reconsideration on the last day for
appeal
he still has one day from receipt of the order denying his motion
within
which to perfect his appeal; and [2] the date October 3, 1967 which
appears
in his "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal" as the date when he
received
the order of September 11, 1967 denying his "Further Motion," is a
typographical
or clerical error, as he in fact received the said order only on
October
5, 1967 the date he perfected his appeal as evidenced by
the
corresponding registry return receipt.cralaw:red
On March 17, 1969
the Court of First Instance
issued an order denying Antiquera's motion to correct the alleged
typographical
error, because the record does not support his contention and the
alleged
registry return receipt could nowhere be found in the record of the
case.cralaw:red
On March 31, 1969
Antiquera appealed the said
order to the Court of Appeals. On June 26, 1974 the latter court
certified
the case to this Court on the ground that the issues raised are purely
of law.
This case should be returned to the Court
of
Appeals because the appeal poses a basic question of fact: did
Antiquera
receive a copy of the order of the municipal court dated September 11,
1967 only on October 5, 1967 and not on October 3, 1967? A resolution
of
this question of fact will also resolve the issue of whether
Antiquera's
appeal from the Municipal Court to the Court of First Instance was
timely
filed or was time-barred.cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY, this
is hereby ordered remanded to
the Court of Appeals for action and decision in accordance with law. No
costs.
Makalintal, C.J.,
Teehankee, Makasiar,
Esguerra and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur. |