Abbarientos v. Workmen's Insurance Co., Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the timeliness of an appeal filed by the private respondent, Workmens' Insurance Co., Inc. The petitioners, Macaria Abbarientos Vda. de Capulong and Flora Capulong, sought to have the private respondent's appeal dismissed. The core issue revolves around when the ten-day extension for filing the record on appeal should commence. 2. Procedural History: The private respondent received a decision against it on January 4, 1969. On February 3, 1969, the last day to perfect its appeal, it filed a motion for an extension of time. The trial judge, Federico Alikpala, granted a ten-day extension on February 4, 1969, which the private respondent received on February 7, 1969. The private respondent then filed its record on appeal on February 14, 1969. The trial judge disapproved the record on appeal, deeming it late. The private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial judge's decision, holding the appeal was timely. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. They contend that the trial court lost jurisdiction to grant the extension, that the judgment was already final, and that even if the extension was valid, it should have been counted from February 3, 1969, making the filing on February 14 late. Furthermore, they argue the appeal is pointless as the insurer is liable regardless of the outcome. The petitioners seek to have the Court of Appeals' decision reversed.
Issue(s)
Whether the record on appeal was filed on time. Whether the trial judge lost jurisdiction to grant an extension of time to file the record on appeal. Whether the 10-day extension granted should be counted from February 3, 1969, or from February 7, 1969. Whether the appeal of the private respondent is rendered moot by the dismissal of the principal defendants' appeal.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The record on appeal is declared perfected and the appeal shall proceed. The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment had not yet become final and executory because the period for filing the record on appeal had been validly extended. The Court held that the extension should be counted from the date the order granting the extension was received, not from the expiration of the original period, especially when the motion requested the extension to commence from receipt of the order. The Court also found that the appeal of the private respondent is not rendered moot, as its liability as an insurer is not automatically established and its appeal may still absolve it of responsibility.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the record on appeal was filed on time: The Supreme Court held that the record on appeal was filed on time. The Court reiterated the principle that a trial court has the power and discretion to extend the period for filing the record on appeal in the interest of justice, provided the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the period fixed by law. In this case, the motion for extension was filed on February 3, 1969, the last day of the reglementary period. The subsequent order granting the extension, even if issued the day after the original period expired, was valid because the motion was filed within the reglementary period, and the court still had jurisdiction to act on it. The Court cited Buena v. Surtida and Singbengco v. Arellano to support the liberal construction of rules regarding extensions to promote justice. On whether the trial judge lost jurisdiction to grant an extension: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge did not lose jurisdiction to grant the extension. The Court clarified that the filing of a motion for extension of time to perfect an appeal, when filed within the reglementary period, does not automatically suspend the running of the period. However, when the court favorably acts upon such a motion, even if the order is issued after the original period has expired, the court is deemed to have retained jurisdiction to grant the extension. This is consistent with the principle that motions for extension are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and should be liberally construed in the interest of justice, as established in cases like Moya v. Barton and Reyes v. Court of Appeals. On when the 10-day extension should be counted: The Supreme Court held that the 10-day extension should be counted from February 7, 1969, the date the private respondent received the order granting the extension. While the general rule is that an extension is tacked to the original period, this rule does not apply when the motion specifically requests the extension to commence from the receipt of the court's order. The Court's order simply granted an extension of ten days without specifying a commencement date, thus implying that it should be counted from the receipt of the order, in line with the ruling in Alejandro v. Endencia. On whether the appeal is rendered moot: The Supreme Court found that the appeal of the private respondent was not rendered moot. The Court explained that the reversal of a judgment on appeal is generally binding only on the parties in the appealed case, with exceptions where the rights of co-debtors are inseparable. The private respondent, as an insurer, might still be absolved of responsibility or even exonerate the principal defendants, which are matters to be determined in its appeal. The Court emphasized that appeal is a right granted by statute and protected by due process, and procedural rules should be liberally construed to allow appeals, citing Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Fortun.
Main Doctrine
An extension of time to file a record on appeal, when granted by the court, is counted from the date the order granting the extension is received by the movant, especially when the motion specifically requests the extension to commence from receipt of the order. Furthermore, the pendency of a motion for extension of time to perfect an appeal, when acted upon favorably by the court, allows the appeal to be perfected within the extended period, even if the order granting the extension is issued after the original period has expired, provided the motion was filed within the original period.