De Luna v. Palacio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners (plaintiffs) and respondent Damaso Ferrer (defendant) both announced their intention to appeal the decision in Civil Case No. 5151 rendered by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. Respondent Ferrer filed his record of appeal on time but failed to file his appeal bond within the reglementary period. Procedural History: Petitioners moved to dismiss Ferrer's appeal. Ferrer objected, claiming the bond was prepared and premium paid before the deadline, but its late filing was due to the oversight of his secretary, Luis Valencia, who forgot to file it after receiving it on June 30, 1966. Valencia's affidavit detailed his oversight, attributing it to a weekend trip to his hometown and a subsequent holiday, stating it was the first instance of such an oversight in his two years of service. The trial court found the negligence excusable and denied the motion to dismiss. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the respondent judge's refusal to dismiss Ferrer's appeal constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the appeal of respondent Damaso Ferrer despite the belated filing of the appeal bond. Whether the belated filing of the appeal bond was due to excusable negligence.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The order of the respondent judge approving the appeal bond of respondent Damaso Ferrer is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the appeal: The Court reiterated that to perfect an appeal, the notice of appeal, record of appeal, and appeal bond must be filed within the prescribed period, and failure to do so renders the decision final. However, relief may be sought under Revised Rule 38, section 2, for fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect. The objection filed by respondent Ferrer was considered a motion for relief under Rule 38, predicated on accident or excusable neglect, and accompanied by an affidavit of merit. The Court held that the trial court's grant of relief was proper if the grounds appeared indubitable. The action of the court below in granting relief was based on the diligence shown by Ferrer in procuring the bond and paying the premium well ahead of the deadline, with the non-filing attributed to an accidental and unforseeable oversight of an employee who had previously been diligent. The Court found that this situation did not constitute a grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or a patent and gross evasion of duty. The court below maintained a liberal attitude, but its action did not intrude into the realm of arbitrary or capricious action. On whether the belated filing of the appeal bond was due to excusable negligence: The Court found that the facts presented supported the trial court's conclusion of excusable negligence. The appellant had taken steps to secure the appeal bond and pay the premium before the deadline. The failure to file was attributed to an employee's oversight, which, given the employee's prior record of diligence, was deemed excusable. The Court distinguished this case from situations where the negligence is not excusable, emphasizing that not every erroneous conclusion of law or fact constitutes an abuse of discretion, and certiorari cannot substitute for an appeal.
Main Doctrine
The belated filing of an appeal bond due to excusable negligence may be a ground for relief under Rule 38, and the denial of a motion to dismiss an appeal on this basis does not constitute grave abuse of discretion if supported by indubitable facts.