Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > June 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. L-49320 June 29, 1984 - FJR GARMENTS INDUSTRIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-49320. June 29, 1984.]

FJR GARMENTS INDUSTRIES, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and KAPISANANG MAGKAKAPIT-BAHAY DAMAYAN AT ABULUYAN, INC., Respondent.

Braulio R. G. Tansinsin for Petitioner.

Dolorsindo L. Paner for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL ACTIONS; JUDGMENTS; FILING OF PETITION FOR RELIEF INSTEAD OF APPEAL NOT JUSTIFIED IN CASE AT BAR. — We hold that the failure of Kapisanan to perfect its appeal was not a pardonable oversight. It is not entitled to relief from judgment because there was no fraud or excusable neglect which prevented it from seasonably appealing to the Court of First Instance. Moreover, its petition had no affidavit of merits. Furthermore, its failure to file a supersedes bond rendered the city court’s judgment immediately executory.

2. ID.; ID.; APPEALS; FAILURE TO PAY DOCKET FEE AND APPEAL BOND, FATAL. — The fact that even before the expiration of the 15-day period the city court declared Kapisanan’s appeal "moot and academic" is of no moment since the fact is that during that period the lessee did not attempt to pay the docket fee and appeal bond.

3. ID.; RULES OF COURT; LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; ONLY REFERS TO MATERIAL DATA RULE IN MATTERS OF APPEAL; CASE AT BAR. — The Appellate Court’s reference to liberality in the interpretation of the Rules of Court in the matter of appeals refers to material data rule found in Section 6 of Rule 41. This case does not involve the material data rule. Rules of Court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative. (Shioji v. Harvey, 43 Phil. 333; Alvero v. De la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428)


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


The issue in this case is whether the lessee should be allowed to pay the docket fee and file an appeal bond after the 15-day period.

The city court of Pasay City on March 11, 1978 rendered a decision ordering Kapisanang Magkakapitbahay Damayan at Abuluyan, Inc. to vacate the lots located at the corner of Leveriza Street and Buendia Avenue, Pasay City, to restore the owner, FJR Garments Industries, to the possession thereof and to pay the accumulated back rentals as of November, 1977 in the sum of P87,110.55 and the monthly rental of P2,250 from December, 1977 until the lots are vacated and P5,000 as attorney’s fees (p. 29, CA Rollo).

That decision was served on Kapisanan on July 6, 1978. Nine days thereafter, or on July 15, 1978, Kapisanan filed a notice of appeal but it did not pay the docket fee of P20 and the appeal bond of P50 and post the supersedeas bond of P107,860, as required by sections 2 and 3, Rule 40 in relation to section 8, Rule 70 and section 5 (12), Rule 141, Rules of Court.

On August 3, 1978, or 28 days after service of the decision, the city court "disapproved" Kapisanan’s appeal. Without filing any motion for reconsideration, Kapisanan filed the next day in the Court of First Instance of Pasay City a petition for relief from judgment on the ground of mistake and excusable negligence consisting of the alleged misinterpretation made by a member of Kapisanan in paying only the postage stamps for the notice mailed to adverse counsel instead of the docket fee and appeal bond.

The lower court in its order of August 26, 1978 dismissed the petition for relief because of its finding that Kapisanan’s failure to appeal was due to its inexcusable neglect (p. 50, CA Rollo).

Kapisanan filed on August 28, 1978 a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals to annul the lower court’s order of August 25 (p. 8, CA Rollo). It may be argued that, as only a legal issue is involved, it should have appealed to this Court under Republic Act No. 5440 which superseded Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court’s decision and directed the city court to allow Kapisanan to perfect its appeal within ten days from the finality of its judgment.

We hold that the failure of Kapisanan to perfect its appeal was not a pardonable oversight. It is not entitled to relief from judgment because there was no fraud or excusable neglect which prevented it from seasonably appealing to the Court of First Instance. Moreover, its petition had no affidavit of merits.

Furthermore, its failure to file a supersedeas bond rendered the city court’s judgment immediately executory.

The fact that even before the expiration of the 15-day period the city court declared Kapisanan’s appeal "moot and academic" is of no moment since the fact is that during that period the lessee did not attempt to pay the docket fee and appeal bond.

The Appellate Court’s reference to liberality in the interpretation of the Rules of Court in the matter of appeals refers to the material data rule found in section 6 of Rule 41. This case does not involve the material data rule.

Rules of court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative. (Shioji v. Harvey, 43 Phil. 333, 341; Alvero v. De la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428).

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside with costs against respondent Kapisanan.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





June-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-32701 June 19, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINEO L. DEJARESCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45363 June 19, 1984 - EMILIANO DULAOGON v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49959 June 19, 1984 - UNITED RCPI COMMUNICATIONS LABOR ASSOCIATION — FUR v. AMADO GAT INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63154 June 19, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUKARNO K. MAWALLIL

  • A.C. No. 2093 June 22, 1984 - CALIXTO YAP v. BENJAMIN SOMERA

  • G.R. No. L-33397 June 22, 1984 - ROMEO F. EDU, ET AL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33436 June 22, 1984 - JOSE E. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39384 June 22, 1984 - PABLO GARBO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42007 June 22, 1984 - MARIA B. DIAZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52760 June 22, 1984 - PIER TWO ARRASTRE SERVICES CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55739 June 22, 1984 - CARLO LEZAMA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56232 June 22, 1984 - ABELARDO CRUZ, ET AL. v. LEODEGARIA CABANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56378 June 22, 1984 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57499 June 22, 1984 - MERCEDES CALIMLIM-CANULLAS v. WILLELMO FORTUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58818 June 22, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO JAMES P. TUMALIUAN

  • G.R. No. 58867 June 22, 1984 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61652 June 22, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO IBASAN, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62275 June 22, 1984 - CLARITA V. TANKIANG SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64164 June 22, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO BANAYO

  • G.R. No. 64515 June 22, 1984 - R & B SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65762 June 23, 1984 - JOSE FRIAS, JR., ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1468 June 25, 1984 - JUAN RAMIREZ v. ROMULO A. SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-32049 June 25, 1984 - MATAAS NA LUPA TENANTS ASS’N., INC., ET AL. v. CARLOS DIMAYUGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38401 June 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO ALAMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61744 June 25, 1984 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL, BULACAN v. OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-63452 June 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL BIHASA

  • G.R. No. L-64165 June 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. Nos. L-23109 & L-23110 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REALINO ZEA

  • G.R. No. L-25723 June 29, 1984 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26827 June 29, 1984 - AGAPITO GUTIERREZ v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-30266 June 29, 1984 - UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30892 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS FORMENTERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35775 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO EGOT

  • G.R. No. L-35833 June 29, 1984 - SUSANA DE LA CERNA LAINGO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN CAMILO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-36461 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DIO

  • G.R. No. L-36941 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL SAYLAN

  • G.R. Nos. L-38468-69 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO B. TUVERA

  • G.R. No. L-46175 June 29, 1984 - AGUEDO F. AGBAYANI, ET AL. v. ROMEO D. MAGAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-48019-22 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO BASAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48625 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLIE AGRIPA

  • G.R. No. L-48744 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CENTENO

  • G.R. No. L-49320 June 29, 1984 - FJR GARMENTS INDUSTRIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53337 June 29, 1984 - AMERICAN WIRE & CABLE WORKERS UNION (TUPAS) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53924 June 29, 1984 - M & M MANAGEMENT AIDS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60219 June 29, 1984 - BIENVENIDO AMISTOSO v. SENECIO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-61323-24 June 29, 1984 - RICHARD C. HOEY v. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61337 June 29, 1984 - AURORA P. CAPULONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62979 June 29, 1984 - ISIDRO REPEQUE v. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN

  • G.R. No. L-64849 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI ROYERAS

  • G.R. No. L-64951 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO AGAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65165 June 29, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL MATEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65622 June 29, 1984 - LEONIDES C. PENGSON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.