Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Angeles
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and the Abra Agricultural Association, Inc. The case stemmed from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch IV, in Civil Case No. Q-11728. The specific details of the original dispute, such as the nature of the claim or the amount in controversy, are not fully elaborated in the provided text, but it is clear that PVTA was ordered to pay a certain amount to the Abra Agricultural Association, Inc. 2. Procedural History: The PVTA received notice of the trial court's judgment on June 22, 1968. On July 19, 1968, the PVTA filed an appeal bond and a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. On the same date, it also filed a motion for a fifteen-day extension to file its record on appeal, citing the need to copy voluminous records. The trial court did not act on this motion. Subsequently, on July 31, 1968, nine days after the original deadline, the PVTA filed a second motion for extension, arguing that the resolution of a motion for reconsideration filed by another defendant, Farmers' Virginia Redriers, Inc. (FVTR), was necessary for its own record on appeal. The private respondent opposed this second motion, asserting it was dilatory and irrelevant to PVTA's appeal. The trial court, on October 16, 1968, dismissed PVTA's appeal for failure to file the record on appeal within the reglementary period. 3. The Petition: The PVTA filed a petition for certiorari with mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the trial court's order dismissing its appeal and to compel the court to give due course to the appeal. The PVTA argued that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the appeal because it had seasonably filed a motion for extension based on valid grounds, which the judge failed to resolve. It also contended that the judge had the power to grant extensions in meritorious cases and that its appeal was not frivolous or dilatory. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition unmeritorious, reaffirming the rule that a motion for extension does not suspend the period for appeal unless granted, and that the PVTA failed to perfect its appeal within the prescribed time.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for failure to file the record on appeal within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. The order of dismissal of the appeal is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court affirmed that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The Court reiterated the well-established rule that the mere filing of a motion for extension of the period to file a record on appeal does not suspend the running of the reglementary period. The primary purpose of such a motion is simply to request the court for an enlargement of the statutory time, and it is incumbent upon the movant to diligently ascertain whether the motion has been granted. Applying precedents such as Bello v. Fernando, the Court stressed that an appellant has no right to assume that an extension would be granted and has a duty to check with the court. In this case, the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) allowed the original thirty (30)-day period to lapse on July 22, 1968, without verifying the status of its first motion for extension, which was never acted upon. Consequently, its second motion for extension, filed on July 31, 1968, was already nine (9) days late, as the right to appeal had already been lost. The Court further noted that while Berkenkotter v. Court of appeals held that approval of a record on appeal, even if after the period, could be tantamount to granting an extension, conversely, the dismissal of an appeal constitutes a denial of the extension, and no grave abuse of discretion was shown in this case. Strict compliance with Section 3, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court regarding the timely filing of the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal is indispensable to prevent needless delays and ensure the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business, as consistently held in cases like Layda v. Legaspi and Bello v. Fernando.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal does not suspend the running of the period for appeal. The movant must ascertain the court's action on the motion; otherwise, if the extension period lapses without the record on appeal being filed, the right to appeal is lost.