Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) Juan Luna branch received a telex advise to pay "Bank of Philippine Islands — Account No. 5-806 Craig Lynn Ford" P7,482.89. Due to a typographical error, the payee was written as "Bank of Philippine Islands — Account No. 5-806 Craig Lynn Form". The Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI) refused to accept the cashier's check twice because the payee had no account with them. The check was eventually claimed by a BPI representative on September 26, 1986, and released without further delay. Subsequently, PCIB received a demand letter for damages from the private respondent's counsel. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, Branch XV, found PCIB guilty of negligence and awarded damages, actual, moral, and exemplary, including attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. A motion for reconsideration filed by PCIB was denied by the CA. The Petition: PCIB filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA decision. A key issue raised was the timeliness of PCIB's motion for reconsideration before the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's decision finding petitioner bank guilty of negligence. Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner bank before the Court of Appeals was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the private respondent is estopped from raising the issue of the belated filing of the motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeals has acquired finality.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence: The original decision did not provide a ratio related to negligence. Therefore, there is no corresponding ratio for this issue based on the provided text. On the issue of the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the period of appeal from a final judgment or decision is mandatory and jurisdictional. Section 39 of B.P. 129 provides for fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice. The records showed that petitioner bank received the CA decision on May 15, 1992, as evidenced by registry receipt no. 37427 and certifications from the Clerk of Court and the Cebu City Postmaster. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration filed on June 2, 1992, was filed out of time. The Court noted that the appellate court failed to verify the timeliness of the motion and proceeded to rule on it, denying it on another ground. The Notice of Judgment, allegedly showing receipt on May 18, 1992, stamped only by petitioner's Legal Department, could not prevail over the official registry receipt and postmaster's certification. The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law, and failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the judgment final and executory. On the issue of estoppel: The Court found no basis to rule that private respondent was estopped from asserting the finality of the decision. As the Court of Appeals had erroneously ruled on the motion for reconsideration without requiring private respondent to comment, it was only before the Supreme Court that private respondent had the opportunity to raise the issue of the belated filing. Therefore, private respondent was not precluded from asserting that the decision had become final and executory due to the failure to file the motion for reconsideration within the prescribed period.
Main Doctrine
Failure to perfect an appeal within the period provided by law renders the judgment final and executory, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion for reconsideration.