Landicho v. Tan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Napoleon Landicho was charged with estafa. The respondent Judge, Bienvenido A. Tan, found him guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment, indemnity, and costs. Immediately after the oral promulgation of the judgment in open court, Landicho's counsel manifested his intent to appeal and requested the fixing of an appeal bond. The bond was fixed, perfected, and Landicho was released. Procedural History: On January 24, 1950, the fifteenth day from the oral judgment, Landicho's counsel attempted to file a written notice of appeal. The clerk of court's office was found closed at 3:30 PM. The messenger entrusted with the notice left it with a clerk in the adjacent City Attorney's office, with assurance it would be filed the next morning. A copy of the written decision was received by Landicho on January 26, 1950. On August 25, 1950, Landicho learned that his written notice of appeal was never filed. Subsequently, on February 7, 1950, Landicho filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied for lack of jurisdiction. The Petition: Landicho filed a petition to compel the respondent judge to admit his appeal and to enjoin the execution of the judgment, arguing that he had perfected his appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner perfected his appeal within the reglementary period. Whether the period for appeal should be computed from the date of the oral promulgation of the judgment or from the date of receipt of the written decision.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The respondent judge is required to give due course to the appeal interposed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the petitioner perfected his appeal within the reglementary period: The Court held that the petitioner had perfected his appeal. It found that Landicho manifested his desire to appeal immediately after the oral promulgation of the judgment through his counsel and posted the required appeal bond. The Court gave credence to the messenger's testimony that the clerk of court's office was closed when he attempted to file the notice of appeal, especially since the messenger successfully served a copy to the adjacent City Attorney's office on the same afternoon. The Court concluded that the failure to file the notice of appeal was not attributable to the petitioner's fault. Therefore, considering the circumstances, the petitioner should be deemed to have perfected his appeal within the reglementary period. On when the period for appeal should be computed: The Court clarified that the reglementary period for appeal, as provided in Section 6, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, is fifteen days from the "rendition of the judgment or order appealed from." The Court explained that "rendition of judgment" means the announcement or declaration of the court's decision, not the entry of the judgment on record or the service of a copy of the written decision. Citing foreign jurisprudence with persuasive force due to the origin of Philippine remedial statutes, the Court stated that rendition refers to the "announcing or declaring of the decision of the court." This announcement can be made either by promulgation in open court or in the manner set forth in Section 6, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. The rule does not require service of a copy of the decision in criminal cases, unlike in cases decided by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is deemed satisfied when the appellant, through counsel, manifests the intent to appeal in open court immediately after judgment, perfects the necessary appeal bond, and makes a timely attempt to file the notice of appeal, even if the filing is unsuccessful due to the clerk of court's office being closed, provided such failure is not attributable to the appellant's fault. The period for appeal commences from the date of rendition of judgment, which means the announcement or declaration of the court's decision, not the service of a copy thereof.