Tuason v. Familara
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent-appellant, Cornelio S. Ruperto, who represented the defendant Raymundo Familara in the lower court, was found guilty of contempt of court by the presiding judge for allegedly hurling false and malicious charges against the court. The order finding him guilty was issued on October 16, 1964, and imposed a fine of P500.00. 2. Procedural History: Respondent-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the contempt order on November 12, 1964, which was denied on December 7, 1964. Subsequently, he filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on December 15, 1964. The lower court, in an order dated January 27, 1965, denied this appeal, citing that it was filed beyond the reglementary period. A subsequent motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied on March 22, 1965, on the grounds of finality of the original contempt order. 3. The Petition: This case reaches the Supreme Court following an appeal from the order denying the reconsideration of the dismissal of the initial appeal. The petitioner-appellee, J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the respondent-appellant failed to file his motion for reconsideration and subsequent appeal within the reglementary periods prescribed by law, specifically Section 10 of Rule 71 and the rules governing appeals in criminal cases, which allow a 15-day period from notice of the judgment or order, interrupted only by a timely motion for new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from the order of contempt was filed within the reglementary period provided by the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The order finding respondent-appellant guilty of contempt is final and unappealable due to the failure to file the appeal within the reglementary period.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the computation made by both the lower court and the petitioner-appellee was correct, leading to the conclusion that the appeal was filed out of time. According to Section 10 of Rule 71, an appeal from a judgment of contempt may be taken 'as in criminal cases.' The Court emphasized that this provision necessarily results in the application of the periods provided for criminal litigation. Under Rule 122, Section 6, an appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice of the judgment or order. In this case, Ruperto received the order on October 26, 1964, meaning the 15-day period ended on November 10, 1964. Because the motion for reconsideration was not filed until November 12, 1964, the reglementary period had already expired, and the order finding him guilty of contempt had assumed finality.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from an order finding a party guilty of contempt must be filed within the reglementary period, and failure to do so renders the order final and unappealable.