De Leon v. Hercules Agro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Gregorio De Leon, doing business as G.D.L. Marketing, initiated a lawsuit against Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation, represented by Jesus Chua, and Rumi Rungis Milk for breach of contract and damages, seeking a writ of preliminary attachment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 20, presided over Civil Case No. 98-89938. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision on September 23, 2005, holding Rumi Rungis Milk liable for specific amounts totaling $142,080 plus legal interest, P100,000.00 in attorney's fees, P477,622.00 for customs duties and taxes, and P6,358.40 for milk analysis costs. The claims against Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and Jesus Chua were dismissed for insufficient evidence, as were their counterclaims. 2. Procedural History: Following the RTC's decision, the petitioner filed a motion for time to file a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC on October 27, 2005, as the period for such motions is non-extendible. Respondent Rumi Rungis Milk filed its own motion for reconsideration and to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, which was also denied by the RTC on January 9, 2006. The petitioner then filed a notice of partial appeal on February 13, 2006, but the RTC, in an order dated February 15, 2006, denied it due course, deeming it filed beyond the reglementary period. The petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied. The petitioner also attempted to file a notice of appeal from the June 1, 2006 order denying his motion for reconsideration, but this too was deemed untimely. The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently issued resolutions on January 7, 2008, and June 2, 2008, affirming the RTC's dismissal of the appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a review on certiorari of the CA's resolutions dated January 7, 2008, and June 2, 2008. The core of the petitioner's argument is that the CA erred in striking off his appellant's brief and dismissing his appeal. He contends that his partial appeal was timely filed after the RTC denied Rumi Rungis Milk's motion for reconsideration, and that Rumi Rungis Milk's motion for reconsideration prevented the decision from becoming final as to all parties. The petitioner also argues that jurisprudence allows for extensions of non-extendible periods in certain circumstances. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the petition, affirming the CA's ruling that the petitioner failed to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period, rendering the RTC decision final as to him.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it ordered the petitioner's appellant's brief filed with it to be stricken off the records. Whether the petitioner's notice of partial appeal was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the RTC's denial of the petitioner's motion for time to file a motion for reconsideration was proper. Whether the petitioner's failure to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period can be excused on the ground of substantial justice.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolutions dated January 7, 2008, and June 2, 2008, of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in striking off the petitioner's appellant's brief: The Court held that the CA correctly ordered the petitioner's brief stricken off the records. The records show that the petitioner received the RTC Decision on October 4, 2005, giving him until October 19, 2005, to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. The petitioner filed a Motion for Time on October 19, 2005, seeking an extension to file a motion for partial reconsideration. This motion was denied by the RTC, as it transgressed the mandatory prohibition against filing a motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration, as established in Habaluyas Enterprises Inc. v. Japson and Rolloque v. Court of Appeals. Consequently, the petitioner lost his right to appeal the September 23, 2005 decision. On the issue of whether the petitioner's notice of partial appeal was filed within the reglementary period: The Court found this argument devoid of merit. The petitioner's argument that he could rely on the RTC Order dated January 9, 2006, denying respondent Rumi Rungis Milk's motion for reconsideration to file his notice of partial appeal was rejected. The Court reiterated that the petitioner had already lost his right to appeal the September 23, 2005 decision as early as October 19, 2005, when he failed to file his motion for partial reconsideration within the reglementary period. Allowing him to appeal at a later time would violate the rule on perfection of appeal, which is not merely an empty procedural rule but is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice. On the issue of whether the RTC's denial of the petitioner's motion for time to file a motion for reconsideration was proper: The Court agreed with the RTC's denial of the petitioner's Motion for Time. The period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. The petitioner's attempt to seek an extension directly contravened the established rules, which prohibit such extensions for motions for reconsideration before the RTC. The filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration does not toll the reglementary period before a judgment becomes final and executory. On the issue of whether the petitioner's failure to perfect his appeal can be excused on the ground of substantial justice: The Court was not persuaded by the petitioner's plea for a liberal application of procedural rules. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice, this is an exception and not the rule. The petitioner failed to show any satisfactory reason that would merit the relaxation of the rules. His stated reasons, such as a heavy volume of work and the need to attend to other urgent matters, were not considered exceptional circumstances justifying non-observance of procedural rules. The Court stressed that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand to automatically suspend procedural rules, and utter disregard of rules cannot be rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.
Main Doctrine
The period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. Failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the judgment final and executory, and the appellate court cannot grant affirmative relief to a party who did not appeal.