Government of Philippine Islands v. Par
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Director of Lands initiated a cadastral survey proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in 1914, seeking to register 675 parcels of land. Francisco G. Par filed an opposition, claiming ownership of three specific lots (Nos. 2687, 3193, and 3199). The court denied Par's claim for registration of lots 2687 and 3193. 2. Procedural History: The decision denying registration was rendered on June 29, 1916, with notification to the appellant on March 2, 1917. Par's motion for rehearing was denied on March 17, 1917, and he excepted on March 20, 1917. A bill of exceptions was filed on April 4, 1917, and approved by the judge on April 14, 1917. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on March 18, 1918, for failure to file the bill of exceptions in the Supreme Court, which was initially denied due to improper notice. A renewed motion to dismiss was filed and granted on July 9, 1918, after the appellant was notified on May 3, 1918. The original bill of exceptions was not filed with the Supreme Court clerk until May 10, 1918. The appellant then filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. 3. The Petition: The appellant, Francisco G. Par, seeks reconsideration of the Supreme Court's order dismissing his appeal. The dismissal was based on the appellee's motion, citing the appellant's failure to cause the proper certified copy of the bill of exceptions to be filed in the Supreme Court within the sixty-day period stipulated by Rule 14 of the Supreme Court Rules, despite the clerk of the lower court's duty under Section 143 of Act No. 190 to transmit the original bill of exceptions. The appellant argues that the clerk's failure to transmit the bill of exceptions should excuse his own non-compliance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court may declare a bill of exceptions abandoned and dismiss the appeal on motion of the appellee due to the appellant's failure to cause the proper certified copies of the bill of exceptions to be filed in the clerk's office within the time prescribed by Rule 14. Whether the failure of the clerk of the lower court to transmit the bill of exceptions justifies the appellant's failure to comply with the Supreme Court's rules.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is denied, and the appeal is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Supreme Court may declare a bill of exceptions abandoned and dismiss the appeal: The Court held that it may declare a bill of exceptions abandoned and dismiss the appeal on motion of the appellee if the appellant fails to cause the proper certified copy to be filed in the clerk's office of the Supreme Court within the time specified in Rule 14. Rule 14 explicitly states that if the certified copies are not filed within sixty days after the bill of exceptions is filed in the lower court, the Supreme Court will, upon application by the appellee and notice to the appellant, declare the bill of exceptions abandoned or the appeal dismissed, unless for cause shown the time is extended. The record shows that from April 14, 1917, when the bill of exceptions was approved, until March 18, 1918, when the appellee first moved for dismissal, and even until May 10, 1918, when the original bill was filed, the appellant did nothing to cause a certified copy to be presented to the Supreme Court. This inaction extended far beyond the sixty-day period prescribed by Rule 14. On the issue of whether the clerk's failure justifies the appellant's non-compliance: The Court ruled that the failure of the clerk of the Court of First Instance to perform his legal duty of transmitting the original bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court does not justify the appellant's failure to perform his own duty under Rule 14 to cause the proper certified copy to be filed within the prescribed period. While Section 143 of Act No. 190, as amended, places the duty on the clerk to transmit the bill of exceptions, Rule 14 imposes a distinct obligation on the appellant to ensure that a certified copy is filed in the Supreme Court within sixty days. The appellant has a remedy against a negligent clerk, but the clerk's failure cannot serve as a valid excuse for the appellant's own dereliction in complying with the rules of the appellate court. The appellant cannot shift the responsibility for his non-compliance onto the clerk of the lower court, especially when the rules clearly place the onus on the appellant to perfect the appeal by filing the necessary documents in the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
An appellant has the duty to cause the filing of a certified copy of the bill of exceptions in the Supreme Court within the prescribed period, and the failure of the clerk of the lower court to perform his duty does not justify the appellant's non-compliance with the rules of the Supreme Court.