ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 131276.
PEZA vs. FERNANDEZ
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 13 2005.
G.R. No. 131276 (Philippine Economic Zone Authority vs. Hon. Rumoldo R. Fernandez, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Lapu-Lapu City, Branch 54, and General Milling Corporation) and
G.R. No. 131684 (Philippine Economic Zone Authority vs. General Milling Corporation.)
Before us are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari:
G.R. No. 131276 and G.R. No.
131684 where petitioner Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) seeks to
reverse the Decision
[1]
cralaw
of the Court of Appeals dated
The antecedent facts of these cases are as follows:
G.R. No. 131276
On
Meanwhile, on
GMC and CTBC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that PEZA has no authority to file a complaint for eminent domain. In an
Order dated
On
On
On
PEZA then filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42151. In its petition, PEZA admitted the late filing of its Notice of Appeal and blamed its former counsel for such lapse.
On
G.R. No. 131684
On September 17, 1980, EPZA filed a complaint for eminent domain against GMC with the RTC, Branch 16, Lapu-Lapu City, docketed as Civil Case No. 490-L. The complaint alleges in part that pursuant to its charter under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 66, as amended, EPZA has the authority to expropriate a lot owned by GMC to be utilized as Export Processing Zone, after payment of just compensation.
On
On
On
EPZA timely submitted a motion for reconsideration. In its Order
dated
On
On
On
On
On
The only issue for our resolution is whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error of law in holding that: (1) the trial court correctly denied due course to PEZA's Notice of Appeal in Civil Case No. 3007-L for having been filed late; and (2) the trial court correctly denied PEZA's motion for reconsideration of the trial court's Order dated April 22, 1996 (dismissing Civil Case No. 490-L) for having been filed two (2) days late.
We note that in the instant cases, petitioner PEZA admits that its Notice of Appeal in Civil Case No. 3007-L-and its motion for reconsideration of the trial court's Order dated April 22, 1996, dismissing Civil Case No. 490-L were both filed out of time. Petitioner now contends that the delay was due to the mistake or negligence of its former counsel, hence, excusable.
While we admire petitioner's candor, we find no room to relax our Rules.
Section 1, Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, reads:
"SEC. 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration. - Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
x x x
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law."
The period for taking an appeal is specified in Section 3, Rule 41, of the same Rules, thus:
"SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order (emphasis supplied).
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed."
As stated earlier, in G.R. No. 131276, petitioner admits that its Notice of Appeal in Civil Case No. 3007-L was filed late. Rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done are absolutely indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and the orderly dispensation of justice by the courts. Accordingly, failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed reglementary period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. [3] cralaw The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise. [4] cralaw Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with. [5] cralaw
Petitioner likewise admits in G.R. No. 131684 that its motion for
reconsideration of the trial court's Order dated
Public policy and sound practice demand that judgments or orders of courts should become final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. [6] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the
petitions in G.R. Nos. 131276 and 131684 are hereby DENIED. The assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA
ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Lourdes K. Tayao-Jaguros and concurred in by Justices Gloria C. Paras (now retired) and Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.
[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adelfuin-De la Cruz (now retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of the Supreme Court) and Roberto A. Barrios.
[3] cralaw Producers Bank of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, 430 Phil. 812, 829 (2002).
[4] cralaw Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso, 433 Phil. 844, 867 (2002), citing Oro vs. Judge Diaz, 413 Phil. 416 (2001), Mercury Drug vs. Court of Appeals, 335 SCRA 567 (2000), Ortiz vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708 (1998).
[5] cralaw Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbezo, supra, citing Pedrosa vs. Hill, 257 SCRA 343 (1996), Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 553 (1995).
[6] cralaw Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 600, 607 (1998), citing Villaflor vs. Reyes, 22 SCRA 385 (1968).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
