Azores v. Securities and Exchange Commission and Philippine Columbian Association
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dr. Antonio L. Azores was a member of the Philippine Columbian Association (PCA), a non-stock corporation, holding two proprietary membership certificates issued in 1952 and 1954. In 1956, he requested a change in membership status from resident to non-resident, which he claims was granted. In 1966, he immigrated to the United States and became an American citizen. He ceased paying membership dues without informing the PCA of his change in residence and citizenship. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1981, he inquired about reactivating his membership and selling his shares. He was informed that he needed to pay all dues accumulated during his absence and that his membership certificates had been cancelled in 1977 for non-surrender. The PCA offered to reactivate one share if he paid dues for each year of absence, but he insisted on the reactivation of both shares. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking the replacement of his membership certificates and reinstatement as an active member. The Hearing Officer rendered a decision sustaining the PCA, which was later denied reconsideration. Petitioner appealed to the SEC en banc, but his appeal was dismissed for being filed out of time. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner contended that the SEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing his appeal and that the SEC committed errors in failing to decide specific questions regarding the PCA's right to deprive him of privileges, its liability for damages, and its alleged violation of by-laws and the law. He argued that Saturdays should not be counted in the period of appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the SEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal for being filed out of time. Whether the SEC committed errors in its alleged failure to decide specific questions and in sanctioning a condition imposed by the PCA. Whether the dismissal of petitioner's appeal by the SEC en banc was in accordance with law and not a grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal by the SEC en banc.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the SEC's grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal: The Court held that the petitioner failed to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period. Rule XVI, §3 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the SEC provides a 30-day period for appeal. Petitioner admitted that the 30th day fell on October 17, 1992, a Saturday, but he filed his appeal on October 20, 1992. The Court clarified that Saturdays are not holidays and should be counted in computing the period of appeal, citing Atlas Cons. Mining and Dev. Corp. v. Factoran. The Court further noted that even if October 17 was a Saturday, the appeal could have been filed on Monday, October 19, but it was filed on Tuesday, October 20. The Court reiterated that the failure to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by law renders the decision final and unappealable, and appellate jurisdiction is lost. The Court emphasized that exceptions to this rule are only in exceptional cases, none of which were present in this case. The Court cited Bank of America, NT & SA v. Gerochi, Jr. for examples of such exceptional cases, none of which applied here. On the alleged errors committed by the SEC: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims that the SEC en banc committed errors. The Court pointed out that the alleged errors were not committed by the SEC en banc but, if at all, by the Hearing Officer. The SEC en banc did not decide the appeal on its merits; it merely dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time. Therefore, the alleged errors were a consequence of the dismissal, not errors of the SEC en banc itself. Furthermore, the Court stated that even if errors were committed by the SEC en banc, they were not errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, which are the grounds for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court also noted that the petitioner failed to perfect his appeal to the SEC en banc, thus he could not raise these alleged errors. The Court also mentioned that further appeal should have been taken to the Court of Appeals under B.P. Blg. 129, §9. On whether the dismissal of petitioner's appeal by the SEC en banc was in accordance with law and not a grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the dismissal was proper because the appeal was filed out of time, as detailed in the first ratio. The Court also found that the alleged errors were not errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, as detailed in the second ratio. Therefore, the dismissal was in accordance with law and was not a grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
Failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period, absent exceptional circumstances, renders the decision final and unappealable, and the appellate court loses jurisdiction to review the case. Saturdays are not considered non-working days for the purpose of computing appeal periods unless specifically declared as holidays or non-working days by competent authority.