Air France Philippines v. Policarpio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Atty. Lumen Policarpio filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Air France Philippines in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Caloocan City in 1980. The parties entered into an amicable settlement through a "Release and Quitclaim" document, leading to a joint motion for dismissal with prejudice of Civil Case No. C-6952. The CFI ordered the submission of the agreement and dismissed the case. Procedural History: More than fourteen years later, in 1995, respondent filed another complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-95-23539), alleging petitioner reneged on the 1980 agreement. Petitioner moved to dismiss based on res judicata and prescription. Respondent countered that since the CFI did not issue a Compromise Judgment due to petitioner's failure to submit the notarized "Release and Quitclaim," res judicata had not set in. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, and its subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA-G.R. SP No. 45015), which was dismissed for failure to attach an affidavit of service, a written explanation for non-personal service, and the lower court's docket number. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a second petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 45251) assailing the same RTC orders. The CA dismissed this second petition for being filed late, citing the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which mandates filing within sixty (60) days from notice. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for having been filed late. Whether procedural rules setting reglementary periods should be applied rigidly or can be relaxed to serve substantial justice.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Supreme Court held that procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing an appellate petition are generally inviolable and must be strictly followed. The Court emphasized that appeal is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right, and parties must comply with the rules. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of judicial business. Failure to perfect an appeal within the period set by law renders the judgment appealed from final and executory. In this case, the second petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 45251) was filed on September 12, 1997. Under the old rules, a 90-day period was allowed, which would have expired on August 21, 1997. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the period was shortened to 60 days. Even if liberally pegged from July 1, 1997, the new rules' effectivity date, the deadline would have been September 1, 1997. Thus, the petition filed on September 12, 1997, was clearly filed out of time, irrespective of which set of rules was applied. On the issue of whether procedural rules should be applied rigidly or relaxed for substantial justice: The Court reiterated that while it may veer away from the general rule and relax procedural rules to serve substantial justice, this is only done when the appeal on its face appears absolutely meritorious. In the present case, the petitioner's failure to comply with the reglementary period was compounded by its prior procedural missteps. Petitioner had previously filed a similar petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 45015) which was dismissed for formal defects. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration to cure these defects, petitioner abandoned that petition and filed a new one, thereby allowing the assailed RTC orders to become final and executory. Even ignoring the first petition, the second petition was still dismissed for being filed out of time. Therefore, the circumstances did not warrant the relaxation of procedural rules.
Main Doctrine
Procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing an appellate petition are generally inviolable and must be strictly followed, as failure to do so renders the judgment final and executory, unless the appeal on its face appears absolutely meritorious, which is not the case when the petition is filed out of time.