Republic v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership with damages filed by private respondents against the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). The private respondents claimed ownership over a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 7133 of the Cadastral Survey of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, with an area of 3494 square meters, covered by OCT No. 2145, which was issued in the name of spouses Domingo Tanguilan and Modesta Addun. DECS occupied this land. Procedural History: After DECS was served summons, it sought an extension to file an answer, which was granted until February 17, 1996. DECS filed a manifestation and motion for a new period to file an answer on February 22, 1996. The plaintiffs moved to declare DECS in default, and on March 1, 1996, the trial court declared DECS in default and set the reception of plaintiffs' evidence. DECS's subsequent motions for reconsideration and to admit its answer were denied, and the trial court rendered a decision on October 29, 1996, ordering DECS to pay rentals, vacate the land, and pay attorney's fees and costs. DECS received the decision on November 5, 1996, and filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on March 14, 1997. DECS filed a notice of appeal on March 31, 1997, but the trial court dismissed the appeal as filed out of time on August 1, 1997, and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. A petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Petition: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines, through DECS, seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner assigns as a lone error that the Court of Appeals erred gravely in rendering the questioned decision. The petition argues that the Court of Appeals should have considered the petition for certiorari as the appropriate remedy. However, the Supreme Court finds the petition without merit, emphasizing that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised within the prescribed period. The Court notes that the petitioner admits the notice of appeal was filed two days late due to the counsel's absence and attendance at another hearing. The Court reiterates that failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the judgment final and executory, and certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy due to neglect.
Issue(s)
Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, considering the availability of appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the timeliness of the appeal: The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege and must be exercised in accordance with law. Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 mandates that the period for appeal is fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment, or decision appealed from. The petitioner admitted that its notice of appeal was filed two days late. This failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the decision final and executory. The Court emphasized that perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Consequently, the appellate court is deprived of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment or entertain the appeal. The Court also cautioned against the practice of seeking to set aside a final judgment due to counsel's failure to personally receive a copy thereof, as this would lead to endless litigation and clogged dockets. On the propriety of certiorari as a remedy: The Court held that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, especially when such loss or lapse is occasioned by one's own neglect or error. The petitioner's counsel admitted that the late filing of the notice of appeal was due to the counsel's absence and subsequent handling of other cases. Therefore, the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was an improper remedy to circumvent the procedural lapse in perfecting the appeal.
Main Doctrine
Failure to perfect an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional, rendering the questioned decision final and executory, and depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal occasioned by one's own neglect.