Ragajoso v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil suit filed by Rogelio B. Ragasajo against the Intestate Estate of Florentino Manungas, represented by its Administratrix Engracia N. Manungas. Ragasajo alleged that the respondent unlawfully prepared a survey plan of Lot 866, incorporating 11,132 square meters of his property and fraudulently securing title in their favor. The respondent denied these accusations. After trial, the lower court ruled in favor of the respondent, upholding the validity of their titles, nullifying Ragasajo's title (OCT No. P-12853), ordering Ragasajo to vacate the property, and awarding damages and attorney's fees to the respondent. Procedural History: Ragasajo appealed the lower court's decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). He received a notice to pay docket fees, which he complied with. Subsequently, he received a notice to file his appellant's brief within forty-five days. However, without filing the brief or seeking an extension, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The IAC, in a resolution dated June 25, 1984, declared the appeal abandoned due to the failure to file the brief. Ragasajo received this notice on July 11, 1984. On July 26, 1984, Ragasajo filed a motion for reconsideration and simultaneously submitted his appellant's brief via registered mail and air cargo. The IAC, considering the date of receipt of the motion as the filing date, denied it on August 10, 1984, deeming it filed late. Ragasajo filed another motion for reconsideration on August 25, 1984, which was also denied on September 27, 1984. The IAC's resolution of June 25, 1984, became final on October 12, 1984. The Petition: Ragasajo filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to nullify the IAC's resolutions of August 10, 1984, and September 27, 1984, which denied his motions for reconsideration and upheld the abandonment of his appeal. He argues that his motion for reconsideration of the June 25, 1984 resolution was filed within the reglementary period, as the date of mailing via registered mail (July 26, 1984) should be considered the date of filing, not the date of receipt by the court (July 30, 1984). He contends that the IAC acted with grave abuse of discretion in deeming his motion late and thereby depriving him of his right to appeal. The petition also touches upon a potential error in the lower court's judgment regarding the extent of encroachment, though this issue was not explicitly raised in the petition itself.
Issue(s)
Whether the right to appeal, declared abandoned for failure to file an appellant's brief, can be revived by a motion for reconsideration filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion in considering the petitioner's motion for reconsideration as filed out of time, and the implications of errors in the lower court's judgment and the conduct of counsel.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court upheld the Intermediate Appellate Court's dismissal of the appeal, finding that while the motion for reconsideration was filed on time via registered mail, it failed to demonstrate excusable negligence for the failure to file the brief and did not show the merit of the appeal. The Court also noted with disapproval the petitioner's counsel's attempt to mislead the court regarding the receipt of the notice to file brief.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reviving an abandoned appeal: The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in accordance with the rules. Failure to file an appellant's brief within the prescribed period, without a valid motion for extension, constitutes grounds for dismissal of the appeal. The Court found that the petitioner's appeal was properly declared abandoned by the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) due to the failure to file the appellant's brief within the 45-day period prescribed by the rules, which lapsed on February 12, 1984, after the notice was received on December 29, 1983. The petitioner did not seek an extension of time. On whether the Intermediate Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion in considering the petitioner's motion for reconsideration as filed out of time, and the implications of errors in the lower court's judgment and the conduct of counsel: The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner that his motion for reconsideration, filed on July 26, 1984, via registered mail, was within the 15-day reglementary period from his receipt of the dismissal notice on July 11, 1984. The Court affirmed that under Section 1, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, the date of mailing is considered the date of filing. Therefore, the IAC erred in considering the motion filed late based on the date of receipt. Despite finding that the motion for reconsideration was filed on time, the Supreme Court held that the IAC did not err in denying it because the petitioner failed to show excusable negligence or oversight and did not demonstrate the merit of his appeal. The Court also noted a potential error in the trial court's judgment regarding the cancellation of OCT No. P-12853, but could not correct it in the present proceeding due to the judgment's finality and the petitioner's failure to raise the issue. Finally, the Court expressed its disapproval of the petitioner's counsel's attempt to mislead the court.
Main Doctrine
The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in accordance with law. Failure to file an appellant's brief within the prescribed period, without a valid motion for extension, may lead to the abandonment of the appeal. While the date of mailing is considered the date of filing for motions filed via registered mail, the motion for reconsideration must still demonstrate excusable negligence for the delay and the merit of the appeal.