Ong Tiao Seng v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ong Tiao Seng received the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila on January 16, 1975. An amended decision was received by his counsel on February 7, 1975. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on March 6, 1975. On March 14, a motion for extension to file the record on appeal was filed due to the alleged illness of counsel, Atty. Macario J. Fernandez. The typewritten record on appeal was filed on March 18, 1975. Procedural History: The trial court, Judge Victorino A. Savellano, denied the admission of the record on appeal on April 3, 1975, finding it filed out of time as the motion for extension was filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period. A motion for reconsideration was also denied on May 22, 1975. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial in a Resolution promulgated on July 21, 1975, reasoning that the motion for extension was filed out of time and that the motion for reconsideration lacked an affidavit of merit. The Petition: Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Petition for certiorari, arguing that the illness of his counsel constituted accident justifying the extension and admission of the record on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the denial of the admission of the petitioner's record on appeal by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, constituted grave abuse of discretion. Whether the illness of counsel constituted excusable negligence or accident sufficient to warrant an extension of time to file the record on appeal. Whether the petitioner sufficiently showed a good and substantial cause of action or defense to justify a petition for relief under Rule 38.
Ruling
The Petition for certiorari is denied for lack of merit. The denial of the petitioner's appeal by the trial court was in order and no grave abuse of discretion was committed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the record on appeal and grave abuse of discretion: The Court affirmed the respondent court's reasoning that the perfection of the appeal was to be reckoned from the receipt of the amendatory order on February 7, 1975. Consequently, the motion for extension to file the record on appeal was filed out of time. Existing jurisprudence dictates that any motion for extension of time to perfect an appeal must be filed prior to the expiration of the original reglementary period. The trial court was therefore justified in denying the admission of the record on appeal. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge under the circumstances. On the illness of counsel as excusable negligence/accident: While acknowledging the illness of Atty. Fernandez, who was confined in the hospital and later died, the Court found that this did not constitute an insurmountable obstacle. The fact that Atty. Fernandez prepared and filed the notice of appeal on March 6, 1975, indicated he was mentally fit and aware of the impending deadline. Therefore, there was no valid reason why a motion for extension could not have been filed on or before March 9, 1975, the last day of the reglementary period. The illness did not prevent the timely filing of the motion for extension. On the requirement of a good and substantial cause of action or defense: The Court emphasized that a crucial requisite for a petition for relief under Rule 38 is the showing of a good and substantial cause of action or defense. The petitioner failed to present and show his defenses or causes of action in the civil cases decided against him. The records only indicated claims and counter-claims for damages arising from a vehicular accident, but no details were provided regarding the circumstances that would indicate the merits of an appeal. Without this showing, the trial court is not bound to set aside its order or judgment. The Court's review of the records confirmed the trial court's findings regarding the vehicular accident, which did not suggest any advantage from an appeal even if it were allowed.
Main Doctrine
The illness of counsel, while a factor to consider, does not automatically justify the grant of an extension to file a record on appeal if it did not constitute an insurmountable obstacle to filing the motion for extension within the reglementary period, and if the petition for relief under Rule 38 lacks a showing of good and substantial cause of action or defense.