Galima v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In two consolidated civil cases, Civil Cases Nos. U-234 and U-435, before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, judgment was rendered against petitioners Sinforoso Galima, Marcelo Nocilo, and Eulalio Nocilo. The judgment ordered them to deliver a specific parcel of land (382 sq. m. covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 18790) to Juliana Bautista, pay her P200 with interest from September 17, 1958, and cover the costs of the suit. Procedural History: Petitioners' counsel received a copy of the decision on January 30, 1962. While a notice of appeal and cash bond were filed before March 26, 1962, the record of appeal was not filed by the expiration of the 30-day period on March 1, 1962. Petitioners sought an extension, which was granted by the vacation judge on April 18, 1962, despite objections. The regular judge, respondent Amado Santiago, later set aside this extension order on June 5, 1962, dismissed the appeal as having become final on March 1, 1962, and issued a writ of execution. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading them to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed their petition. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision via a petition for certiorari to this Court. They contend that the trial court had discretion to grant an extension for filing the record of appeal on equitable grounds, and that the initial grant of extension by Judge Pabalan was valid. They argue that a one-day delay in filing the motion for extension, attributed to counsel's recent retention and belief in the timeliness of the filing, constituted excusable neglect. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, emphasizing that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is jurisdictional and that the lapse of the appeal period deprives the court of jurisdiction to alter a final judgment, citing established jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and upholding the dismissal of the appeal by the respondent judge. Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the order granting an extension to file the record of appeal and in dismissing the appeal.
Ruling
The petition for review is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The writ of certiorari applied for is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and upholding the dismissal of the appeal: The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. It was not denied that the 30-day period for appeal expired on March 1, 1962, and the petition to extend the time to file the record of appeal was filed one day late, on March 2, 1962. The Court reiterated that the filing of the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal within the reglementary period of thirty days is mandatory and jurisdictional. Unless an application for extension of time is filed within the reglementary period, the period for perfecting an appeal cannot be extended. Therefore, it was an error for Judge Pabalan to have granted the motion for extension filed after the reglementary period had elapsed. Consequently, respondent Judge Santiago did not abuse his discretion in setting aside Judge Pabalan's order and dismissing the appeal. On the issue of whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Santiago. The Court emphasized that once the appeal period has elapsed, the court loses all jurisdiction over the case and has no alternative but to order the execution of the final judgment. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the allowance of an appeal not taken within the reglementary period does not render the appeal valid. The miscomputation by counsel of the appeal period does not suspend the course of the period nor prevent the finality of the judgment. The definitive and executory character of a judgment would be undermined if it were left to the whim of the losing party. The Court clarified that the ruling in Santiago vs. Valenzuela has been abandoned and overruled in subsequent cases, which consistently hold that the perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period is jurisdictional.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal within the period prescribed by law is jurisdictional. A motion for extension to file a record on appeal, if filed after the reglementary period has expired, cannot be granted, and the dismissal of the appeal in such a case is proper.