Go v. BPI Finance Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: BPI Finance Corporation (BPI) filed a collection case against Wilson T. Go for an alleged outstanding credit card balance of P77,970.91. Go, a former Executive Vice-President of Noah's Ark Merchandising, argued that the credit card was a company account and that BPI failed to provide him with an updated statement of account and supporting documents. Despite agreeing to the authenticity of certain documents, including statements of account, Go failed to present evidence during the hearing, leading the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) to declare a waiver of his right to present evidence. 2. Procedural History: The MeTC ruled in favor of BPI, holding Go liable for the debt, plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Go appealed this decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC's ruling. Go's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC. Go's counsel received the denial on November 26, 2009. On December 10, 2009, Go filed a motion for an extension of time to file his petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). He filed his petition for review on January 11, 2010, assuming an extension had been granted. The CA, in a resolution dated May 4, 2010, denied his petition for review, stating that his motion for extension was only partly granted for fifteen (15) days, making his filing out of time. The CA further denied Go's motion for reconsideration on October 12, 2011. 3. The Petition: Go filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's resolutions. He argued that he was unaware of the limited extension granted and that he was denied due process by the CA's dismissal on a technicality without resolving the merits of his case. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, emphasizing that the right to appeal is a statutory right that requires strict compliance with procedural rules. The Court reiterated that extensions for filing petitions for review are generally limited to fifteen (15) days, and a party cannot assume that a longer extension will be granted. The Court found that Go's failure to file within the reglementary period, even with the granted extension, was fatal to his appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for review for being filed out of time despite the petitioner's request for a thirty (30) day extension.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals denying Go's petition for review for having been filed out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly denied the petition as it was filed beyond the reglementary period. Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is explicit that while a motion for extension may be filed, the CA may grant an additional period of 'fifteen (15) days only.' The Court clarified that a petitioner cannot assume a motion for extension has been granted, especially when the request exceeds the period allowed by the rules. Applying the doctrine in Lacsamana v. IAC, the Court reiterated that extensions of time are not a matter of right but are granted only for meritorious reasons and are generally capped at fifteen days. In Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, the Court previously established that an appellant 'knew or ought to have known' that a 30-day request could only be legally granted for 15 days. The delay of four months by the CA in issuing its resolution does not excuse the petitioner from compliance, as the burden of perfecting an appeal within the jurisdictional period lies with the party appealing. Failure to comply with these mandatory and jurisdictional requirements renders the lower court's judgment final and executory, leaving the appellate court without jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment final and executory. An extension of time to file an appeal is generally allowed only for fifteen (15) days, and a party cannot assume that a motion for extension has been granted without explicit resolution from the court.