Sumbillo v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the partition of two parcels of land located in Minuyan, Norzagaray. The private respondents, Amparo S. Torres and Dominga S. Torres, initiated an action for partition against the petitioners, Domingo Sumbillo, Marcelo Sumbillo, and Julita Sumbillo. The petitioners asserted the defense of res adjudicata, contending that the subject properties were already litigated in two prior cases, Civil Case Nos. SM-511 and 633. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch XIII, initially dismissed the private respondents' complaint in Civil Case No. SM-1318 on March 22, 1984, based on the petitioners' affirmative defense of res adjudicata. The private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration on May 23, 1984, which was 47 days after receiving the dismissal order on April 6, 1984, and was denied on June 1, 1984, for being filed out of time. A second motion for reconsideration was also denied on July 23, 1984. The private respondents then filed a Notice of Appeal, which was elevated to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) despite the petitioners' opposition. The IAC denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the appeal, and subsequently rendered a decision on July 29, 1986, setting aside the trial court's dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings. The IAC denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of this decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review on certiorari of the IAC's decision and resolution. They argue that the IAC acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion by not dismissing the private respondents' appeal, which they contend was not perfected within the reglementary period. The petitioners assert that the order dismissing the complaint had become final and unappealable when the private respondents filed their motions for reconsideration and subsequent appeal. The Supreme Court is asked to rule on the timeliness of the appeal and the IAC's jurisdiction to entertain it.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent appellate court acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the appeal of the private respondents because the appeal was not perfected on time. Whether the negligence of counsel in failing to file a timely motion for reconsideration constitutes excusable negligence warranting the reopening of the case.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one entered AFFIRMING the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. SM-1318 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. With costs against private respondents in both instances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal and the jurisdiction of the appellate court: The Court held that the petitioners' contention has merit. The record shows that counsel for private respondents received the order dismissing the complaint on April 6, 1984. They had fifteen (15) days from said date, or up to April 21, 1984, within which to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration. However, their motion for reconsideration was filed only on May 23, 1984, which was forty-seven (47) days after receipt of the dismissal order. Consequently, the order dismissing the complaint had already become final when the private respondents filed their motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the respondent appellate court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, except to dismiss the same. The Court clarified that the appellate court could not be said to have exercised its exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments when it entertained the appeal, as the notice of appeal was not an action for annulment. On the issue of excusable negligence: The Court further noted that no party is allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment. The negligence of counsel in not filing the motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period was not considered excusable, as attorneys owe it to themselves and their clients to have a system for promptly receiving judicial notices. Allowing reopening based on such allegations would make the end of litigation speculative.
Main Doctrine
An appeal filed beyond the reglementary period, after a judgment has become final, deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, except to dismiss it.