Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > September 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20940 September 29, 1967 - BERNARDO LONARIA v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20940. September 29, 1967.]

BERNARDO LONARIA, Petitioner, v. JUDGE PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN and FORTUNATA SANTIAGO, Respondents.

Gregorio San Agustin for Petitioner.

Obed Jose Meneses and Macario O. Directo for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS; PERIOD OF APPEAL FROM RULING OF DECISION THEREOF. — Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from an order, ruling or decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations shall be brought within a period of 15 days from notice of such ruling, order or decision.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WAIVER OF PERIOD; CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner, in the case at bar, contends that the appeal was perfected on time because only 7 or 5 days were consumed — 7 days only, even if the period be counted from November 26, 1962, because from November 26 to November 28, there were only 2 days; from January 18, to January 22, 1963, there were only 4 days; and from February 21 to February 22, 1963, only 1 day; hence a total of 7 days. If the period of appeal is to be counted from receipt of a copy of the decision on January 18, 1963, only a total of 5 days was consumed, because from January 18 to January 22, 1963, only 4 days transpired, and from February 21, to February 22, only 1 day. HELD: When petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration on November 28, 1962, he certainly had knowledge of the order appealed from, otherwise, there was no basis for his motion. By filing said motion, he waived his right to have the period of appeal counted from receipt of the order.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REASONS FOR RULE THAT PERIOD OF APPEAL BE COUNTED FROM NOTICE OF ORDER OR DECISION. — The reasons for the rule requiring that the period of appeal be counted from notice of the order or decision are: first, in order that the period may not commence to run until the party concerned has opportunity to take the steps he may deem proper in view of the order or decision, which steps he cannot take, unless he has knowledge of the order or decision, which knowledge he acquires usually only upon receipt of a copy thereof; and, second, so that the commencement of the period for the appeal may not be uncertain.


D E C I S I O N


ZALDIVAR, J.:


Petition for certiorari to review the order, dated November 26, 1962, of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Judge Pastor L. de Guzman, presiding, in CAR Case No. 660, Bulacan ‘62, ordering herein petitioner to pay additional rental of P25.00 yearly, increasing thereby the yearly rental from P200.00 to P225.00 of petitioner’s landholding.

Petitioner Bernardo Lonaria has been an agricultural tenant since 1959, on the leasehold tenancy basis, over about two hectares of agricultural land belonging to respondent Fortunata Santiago. Petitioner used to pay a yearly rental of P200.00 therefor, but sometime in January 1962 the owner informed petitioner that effective immediately the rental was increased to P250.00, and that should tenant refuse to pay he would be ejected.

To protect his interests, petitioner filed, on February 15, 1962, before the Court of Agrarian Relations a petition alleging therein that the landholding had a normal average yearly net harvest of 30.8 cavans of palay and P65.00 worth of crops, and that pursuant to Section 46 of Republic Act 1199, as amended, the legal rental should be only 7.7 cavans of palay plus P16.25 a year. Respondent Fortunata Santiago in her answer, dated March 22, 1962, claimed that "respondent’s land is a first class land and the area cultivated by petitioner yields 60 to 65 cavans a year." The parties entered into a trial on November 26, 1962 wherein petitioner offered his evidence, while respondent Santiago did not submit any. On the same day, respondent Judge issued in open court an order, the pertinent portions of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appearing that the holding yields 130 cavans a year plus mangoes and vegetables, the amount of P25.00 increase sought for by the landholder in addition to the standing P200.00 lease rental is considered reasonable.

"WHEREFORE, petitioner is ordered to pay an additional amount of P25.00 or yearly, P225.00."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, on November 28, 1962, upon the grounds that (1) the affirmative and special defenses of respondent were denied, and (2) the evidence adduced during the trial was in direct contravention to said defenses. This motion for reconsideration was denied on December 26, 1962. A second motion for reconsideration, filed on January 22, 1963, claiming that the order of November 26, 1962 had no legal and factual bases and, hence, illegal, was likewise denied on February 9, 1963.

Alleging that the decision was not supported by the evidence and that it was contrary to the provisions of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, the instant petition was filed before this Court, praying that the decision appealed from be set aside and that the issue be resolved on the basis of the evidence on record.

Respondent Fortunata Santiago filed on April 1, 1963 a motion to dismiss upon the principal ground that the period for the filing of the notice of appeal had expired. This Court by resolution dated June 13, 1963 considered the motion to dismiss as respondent’s answer. On July 8, 1963, however, respondents filed their "Answer" denying petitioner’s allegation that less than one-half of the landholdings was devoted to the cultivation of palay, and likewise justifying the decision. Inasmuch as the requirement regarding the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and the failure to appeal on time has the effect of rendering final the judgment of the court, the resolution of the motion to dismiss filed by respondent on April 1, 1963 upon the ground that the appeal was not perfected on time must be given preferential attention.

Section 4 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from an order, ruling or decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations shall be brought within a period of 15 days from notice of such ruling, order or decision. Was the instant appeal perfected within said reglementary period?

From the petitioner’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, it appears that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On November 26, 1962, the order appealed from was dictated in open court;

On November 28, 1962, the first motion for reconsideration was filed;

On January 4, 1963, petitioner’s counsel received the court’s resolution dated December 26, 1962 denying the motion. On this same day, counsel for petitioner filed two motions, to wit: (1) motion to furnish petitioner with copy of the order of November 26, 1962, and (2) motion to suspend period for finality of the order;

On January 18, 1963, petitioner’s counsel received a copy of the order subject of the present appeal;

On January 22, 1963, counsel for petitioner filed his second motion for reconsideration; On February 21, 1963, counsel for petitioner received copy of the order dated February 11, 1963 denying second motion for reconsideration;

On February 22, 1963, the instant appeal was filed. (Records, pp. 34- 35)

Petitioner contends that the appeal was perfected on time because only 7 or 5 days were consumed - seven days only, even if the period be counted from November 26, 1962, because from November 26 to November 28, there were only 2 days; from January 18 to January 22, there were only 4 days; and from February 21, 1963 to February 22, 1963 only one day; hence a total of seven days. If the period of appeal is to be counted from receipt of a copy of the decision which in this case was January 18, 1963, only a total of five days was consumed, because from January 18, 1963 to January 22, 1963, only 4 days transpired; and from February 21 to February 22, only one (1) day (Records, pp. 34-35).

From what date should the period of appeal be counted in the instant case? When petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration on November 28, 1962, he certainly had knowledge of the order appealed from, otherwise there was no basis for his motion. This is evident from the preliminary statement in his motion for reconsideration which cited the dispositive portion of the order of the Court of Agrarian Relations, stating:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The order sought to be reconsidered states that the petitioner is to pay a rental to respondent in the amount of P225.00 per year for the use of the landholding situated in Valenzuela, Bulacan."cralaw virtua1aw library

By filing said motion, he waived his right to have the period of appeal counted from receipt of the order. The reasons for the rule requiring that the period of appeal be counted from notice of the order or decision are, first, in order that the period may not commence to run until the party concerned has opportunity to take the steps he may deem proper in view of the order or decision, which steps he cannot take unless he has knowledge of the order or decision, which knowledge he acquires usually only upon receipt of a copy thereof; and second, so that the commencement of the period for the appeal may not be uncertain. These two purposes have already been fulfilled when petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration. There is then no reason to say that in this case the period of appeal should commence to run from the date he received a copy of the order on January 18, 1963, because settled in law is the maxim: cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa Tex, "where the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases."cralaw virtua1aw library

The period for appeal should, therefore, commence from the filing of the first motion for reconsideration, that is, on November 23, 1962. But this period was immediately suspended by the filing of the motion, notice of denial of which he received on January 4, 1963. His filing on the same date the motion to suspend the finality of the order did not ipso facto suspend the running of the period from said date, for even petitioner himself does not claim that such motion was ever granted. Petitioner filed the second motion for reconsideration only on January 22, 1963. From January 4 to January 22, 1963, already 18 days had lapsed, more than the 15 days allowed for appeal. The filing of the second motion on January 22, 1963 did not suspend the running of the period, first, because it was pro forma based on grounds already existing at the time of the first motion; and second, because there was no more period to suspend, as the period had already lapsed. Section 4 of Rule 14 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The filing of the motion for reconsideration shall stay the execution of the order or decision sought to be reconsidered and shall suspend the running of the period within which the appeal to the Supreme Court must be perfected; Provided, however, That a pro forma motion for reconsideration which is a reiteration of a first motion or is founded on a ground available at the time of the filing of such first motion will not interrupt the period of appeal."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, this case must be dismissed for having been appealed beyond the reglementary period.

Having arrived at the foregoing conclusion, We do not consider it necessary to discuss the other points raised by petitioner in this appeal.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is dismissed, and the order of respondent Court of Agrarian Relations of November 26, 1962 is affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., J., reserves his vote.




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-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 492 September 5, 1967 - OLEGARIA BLANZA, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN ARCANGEL

  • G.R. No. L-19831 September 5, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO BUCO

  • G.R. No. L-21184 September 5, 1967 - SIMEON CORDOVIS, ET AL. v. BASILISA A. DE OBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22146 September 5, 1967 - SVERIGES ANGFARTYGS ASSURANS FORENING v. QUA CHEE GAN

  • G.R. No. L-22492 September 5, 1967 - BASILAN ESTATES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26703 September 5, 1967 - IN RE: MARMOLITO R. CATELO v. CHIEF OF THE CITY JAIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26734 September 5, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANFILO PADERNAL

  • G.R. No. L-27515 September 5, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26090 September 6, 1967 - ISIDRO B. RAMOS v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26951 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17587 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE

  • G.R. No. L-23936 September 13, 1967 - IN RE: HAO GUAN SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24092 September 13, 1967 - GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24836 September 13, 1967 - YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18722 September 14, 1967 - CATALINA M. DE LEON, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19570 September 14, 1967 - JOSE V. HILARIO, JR. v. CITY OF MANILA

  • A.C. No. 540 September 15, 1967 - PEDRO C. RELATIVO v. MARIANO DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21504 September 15, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22734 September 15, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MANUEL B. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-27125 September 15, 1967 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21166 September 15, 1967 - BONIFACIO GESTOSANI, ET AL. v. INSULAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27515 September 15, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21691 September 15, 1967 - RAMON V. MITRA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19713 September 18, 1967 - IN RE: BONIFACIO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22645 September 18, 1967 - CARLOS CALUBAYAN, ET AL. v. CIRILO PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-23174 September 18, 1967 - CONCEPCION MACABINGKIL v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27934 September 18, 1967 - CONSTANTE PIMENTEL v. ANGELINO C. SALANGA

  • G.R. No. L-23927 September 19, 1967 - TALLER BISAYAS EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. PANAY ALLIED WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23716 September 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24091 September 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20812 September 22, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINGO PO CHU SAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20942 September 22, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. A. D. GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. L-19892 September 25, 1967 - GERONIMO GATMAITAN v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20706 September 25, 1967 - MARIANO LAPINA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21804 September 25, 1967 - TERESA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20055 September 27, 1967 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 500 September 27, 1967 - TAHIMIK RAMIREZ v. JAIME S. NER

  • G.R. No. L-21209 September 27, 1967 - CHIENG HUNG v. TAM TEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22456 September 27, 1967 - FRANCISCO SALUNGA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20303 October 31, 1967 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23233 September 28, 1967 - LUIS ENGUERRA v. ANTONIO DOLOSA

  • G.R. No. L-24384 September 28, 1967 - MARGARITA IÑIGO v. ADRIANA MALOTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23463 September 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS CLEMENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20827 September 29, 1967 - ADELA C. SALAS-GATLIN v. CORAZON AGRAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21749 September 29, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-21879 September 29, 1967 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

  • G.R. No. L-21876 September 29, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT ENTERPRISES INC. v. SOLEDAD NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21985 September 29, 1967 - AMPARO CRUZ v. ROSA HERNANDEZ NALDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22261 September 29, 1967 - ENRIQUE BALDISIMO v. CFI OF CAPIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23599 September 29, 1967 - REYNALDO C. VILLASEÑOR v. MAXIMO ABAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23666 September 29, 1967 - EUSTAQUIO AMOREN, ET AL. v. HERNANDO PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24591 September 29, 1967 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27266 September 29, 1967 - FEDERICO G. REAL, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19978 September 29, 1967 - CECILIO RAFAEL v. EMBROIDERY AND APPAREL CONTROL AND INSPECTION BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 September 29, 1967 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20940 September 29, 1967 - BERNARDO LONARIA v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21911 September 29, 1967 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. HOBART DATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21979 September 29, 1967 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. ATLAS TRADING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22096 September 29, 1967 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22119 September 29, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. MELANIO SALCEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22523 September 29, 1967 - IN RE: EDWIN M. VILLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22621 September 29, 1967 - JOSE MARIA RAMIREZ v. JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27420 September 29, 1967 - RENATO L. AMPONIN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21655 September 29, 1967 - FERNANDO CORPUZ v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22107 September 30, 1967 - CONSTANTINO TIRONA, ET AL. v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23655 September 30, 1967 - EMILIA GABON, ET AL. v. NICANOR G. JORGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27535 September 30, 1967 - FELIX LOMUGDANG v. PATERNO JAVIER