ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 142457.September 10, 2001]
SPS. FERRER vs. DR. SABADO
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 10, 2001.
G.R. No. 142457(Spouses Manuel & Merla Ferrer vs. Dr. Raul F. Sabado.)
Before this Court is a Petition for Review by certiorari assailing the Court of Appeal's Decision dated August 30, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 50417, and the Resolution dated February 11, 2000, denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
The undisputed facts as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
On June 10, 1996, private respondent filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, a Petition/Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession over a parcel of land in Dagupan City which he had purchased from the Pangasinan Savings and Loan Bank, and which the latter had acquired by foreclosure from the petitioners. The said petition was docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 96-00365-D and assigned to Branch 43.
An opposition to the petition/motion was subsequently filed by petitioners on June 21, 1996 and this was followed a few months later, or on October 3, 1996, by a 'Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Archive the Case' pleading as ground, the pendency of Civil Case No. 96-00944-D, an action for legal redemption and damages earlier filed by the petitioners against Pangasinan Savings and Loan Bank and private respondent. The same was opposed by the private respondent.
The motion to suspend was originally granted by the respondent judge, but on motion for reconsideration by private respondent, the order of suspension was set aside, and the petition/motion was scheduled for hearing.
On June 29, 1998, the respondent judge issued a decision granting the petition/motion and directing the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of private respondent.
On July 8, 1998, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned decision. Private respondent filed an opposition thereto.
On September 1, 1998, the respondent judge issued an Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. A copy of the same was received by the petitioner on September 3, 1998. The following day, they filed a Notice of Appeal. The corresponding appellate docket fees were paid on September 9, 1998.
However, through an Order, dated October 5, 1998, respondent judge denied the appeal, on the ground of petitioners' failure to file a record on appeal.
Petitioners immediately filed a 'Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Record on Appeal', with the, record on appeal attached, but the same was denied through an Order, dated November24, 1998. 1 Rollo, pp. 25-26.
Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the CA. On August 30, 1999, the CA denied such petition for lack of merit. In a Resolution dated February 11, 2000, the CA denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners are now before this Court, praying that its appeal be given due course by the Court of Appeals notwithstanding their failure to file record on appeal. The main issue before this Court, therefore, is procedural in nature. Petitioners contend that:
The Honorable Court of Appeals has acted in excess of or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 50417. 2 Id., at 14.
The rule in appeals in special proceedings, as opposed to an ordinary action, requires the filing of a record on appeal. Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states:
Ordinary appeal.-The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. (emphasis supplied)
Corollarily, Section 9, Rule 41 provides:
Perfection of appeal; effect thereof.- A party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.
Perfection of the appeal is a jurisdictional issue, the failure of which generally results in the fatality of the appeal. This Court has held that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal as legally required has the effect of rendering final and executory judgment of the court below and deprives the appellate court jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 3 MERS Shoes Manufacturing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 286 SCRA 647 (1998).Hence, failure to file a record on appeal in this case precludes the approval thereof and results in the death of this petition, unless strong compelling reasons such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof is shown.
It is an undisputed fact that petitioners failed to perfect the appeal by their failure to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period. The only question to be resolved is whether or not the petitioners have amply shown strong compelling reasons for this Court to disregard petitioners' technical lapses and revive their appeal.
We rule in the negative.
Petitioners claim that his failure to file the record on appeal on time was due to the effects of strong typhoon Gading that hit Pangasinan; that his typist had sore eyes and took a leave of absence for more than a week; that at that time the undersigned counsel was also suffering' from an infection of his right ear; and that he was also saddled by the preparation of four (4) briefs to the Court of Appeals and one (1) brief to the Supreme Court involving a death convict where he was asked by the relative to take care of the ease on appeal as he was not the one who handled the trial of the case. 4 Petition for Review on Certiorari, p. 9 August 3 2000, Rollo, p 16.This Court has held that volume of work is not a valid excuse. 5 Velasco vs. Ortiz, 184 SCRA 303, 311 (1990).The other factors cited by the petitioners' counsel are, likewise, of no moment.
In addition, the finding of the Court of Appeals is enlightening:
Petitioners' counsel admitted that he had already been preparing the record on appeal prior to the expiration of the reglementary period. This leads to the conclusion that he was not only aware that a record on appeal is required but also, he knew that the prescriptive period for filing thereof was about to lapse. Hence the claim of 'oversight' was just a convenient excuse. 6 Decision of the Court of Appeals, p. 5; Rollo, p. 29.
������������ The existence of an opportunity for the petitioners to move for the extension of the period for filing of the record on appeal is evident from the allegations in the petition. For if the petitioner had the time and resources to enable him to file briefs for other cases, then he could have just as easily included this motion in his workload. After all, a motion may be drafted in considerably less time than it takes for the preparation of a brief.
In the case of Ong Tiao Seng vs. Court of Appeals, this Court held:
Although Atty. Fernandez entered the hospital on February 21, nonetheless he prepared and caused to be filed a notice of appeal on March 6, meaning to say, that he was mentally fit and in fact was aware that the period, to appeal from the adverse decision in his client's case was about to expire. There was no valid cause or reason therefore why on that same date and occasion, March 6, a motion for extension to perfect the appeal could not have been filed in court. In other words, the illness of Atty. Fernandez did not constitute an insurmountable obstacle or impediment to the filing of the motion for extension on or before March 9, the last day of the 30-day reglementary period, as shown by the very fact that Atty. Fernandez was able to cause the preparation and filing of a notice of appeal on March 6. 7 SCRA 417 420 421 (1978).
������������ The natural and legal course for the petitioners' counsel was to file a motion for extension of time within which to submit petitioners' Record on Appeal. Under normal practice, and due to the reasons explained in the petition, such motion would have been granted. However, the counsel, likewise, failed to do so. Considering that the petitioners failed to file the record on appeal within the prescriptive period, respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their appeal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
