Labitad v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Carruf Agricultural Corporation filed a complaint in 1976 against petitioners before the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon. The corporation, as lessee of a 510-hectare government land, alleged that petitioners unlawfully entered and cultivated approximately 78 hectares of the leased property. The trial court ruled in favor of the corporation, ordering petitioners to vacate the land and pay damages and attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: Petitioners received the trial court's decision on August 17, 1977, and filed a motion for reconsideration on September 14, 1977. They received the denial of their motion on October 25, 1977. On October 27, 1977, they filed a notice of appeal, a motion to appeal as paupers, and a motion for an extension to file the record on appeal. The appeal bond was deposited on October 28, 1977. The trial court dismissed the appeal as untimely and ordered execution. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition and affirmed the trial court's order. This led to the present petition. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners contend that their appeal was perfected within the reglementary period. They argue that the 30-day period to appeal, which commenced upon their receipt of the decision on August 17, 1977, was suspended by their motion for reconsideration. They assert that the period resumed on October 26, 1977, and concluded on October 28, 1977, making their notice of appeal, motion for extension, and appeal bond timely filed. They also argue that the motion for extension was filed within the original period, rendering the subsequent record on appeal seasonably filed.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners perfected their appeal within the reglementary period. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners' appeal.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 15, 1980, and the Resolution dated April 17, 1980, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP 07812 are REVERSED. The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to decide petitioners' appeal with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the petitioners perfected their appeal within the reglementary period: The Court held that an appeal is perfected by serving upon the adverse party and filing with the trial court, within thirty (30) days from notice of order or judgment, a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal. The time during which a motion to set aside the judgment or order or for a new trial has been pending shall be deducted, unless such motion fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 37. However, where such a motion has been filed during office hours of the last day of the period provided, the appeal must be perfected within the day following that in which the party appealing received notice of the denial of said motion. In this case, petitioners received the decision on August 17, 1977. They filed their motion for reconsideration on September 14, 1977, which was the 28th day, thus excluding this day from the count. They had three days left. The motion was pending until October 25, 1977, when they received the denial. Therefore, the appeal period continued on October 26 and ended on October 28, 1977. The notice of appeal and motion for extension were filed on October 27, and the appeal bond was deposited on October 28, 1977, all within the reglementary period. The trial court erred in dismissing the appeal as the appeal bond was filed on time. Furthermore, where a motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal was made within the original 30-day period, the record on appeal subsequently submitted is considered seasonably filed. On the issue of whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners' appeal: The Court found that the trial court committed an error in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was filed one day late, as the bond was, in fact, filed on time. This erroneous dismissal, based on a miscalculation of the reglementary period, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the trial court's dismissal, also erred. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, directing the latter to decide the appeal on its merits.
Main Doctrine
An appeal is deemed perfected when the aggrieved party files with the trial court a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal and serves copies thereof on the adverse party within 30 days from receipt of the judgment appealed from. The 30-day period is suspended if a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed, and upon denial, the period continues to run as if no interruption had occurred. The time during which the motion is pending includes the day it is filed and continues until the movant is duly notified of the denial.