Armigos V CA

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Armigos vs CA

G.R. No. L-50654 06 November 1989 Padilla, J.


Legal Periods
PETITIONER RESPONDENTS
Rudy Gleo Armigos Court of Appeals, Cristito Mata, and Judge L.D.
Carpio, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Davao del Sur, Branch V
RECIT-READY SUMMARY
Petitioner appeared before the CA asking to reverse the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Davao del Sur. In its initial decision, the lower Court dismissed the petitioner’s
appeal on the grounds that he filed it beyond the reglementary period. Asserting his position
that his appeal fell within the said period, he filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus with
preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeals assailing the erroneous decision of the lower
court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision by supplying the provisions set
forth by the Civil Code and Rules of Court. Hence, the CA dismissed the petitioner’s appeal
as the latter failed to present compelling reasons as to why he failed to appeal within the
permissible period.
FACTS
1. Private respondent, Cristito Mata, filed a complaint against the petitioner at the
Municipal Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur, for the collection of damages and
attorney fees.
2. MTC ruled in favor of the private respondent and a copy of the decision was received
by the petitioner on 8 June 1977.
3. Petitioner appealed before the MTC on 9 June 1977 and completed the other
requirements of his appeal on 24 June 1977.
4. Petitioner’s appeal was then elevated to the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur.
Respondent Judge dismissed the appeal by stating that the said appeal was filed
beyond the reglementary period.
5. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus with preliminary injunction to the
appellate court. He argued that from the time that he received a copy of the decision
(8 June 1977) to the moment that he perfected his appeal (24 June 1977), only 15
days had elapsed, rendering the initial decision as erroneous. The petitioner
contended that the computation of the period to appeal should commence on the hour
he received copy of the decision, so that the first of the 15-day period comprising 24
hours is from 4:00 PM of 9 June 1977 to PM of 10 June 1977 and the last day, from
4:00 PM of 23 June 1977 to 4:00 PM of 24 June 1977.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur erred in its decision to
dismiss the petitioner’s appeal. (No)
RATIONALE
According to Article 13 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, “x x x In computing a period, the
first day shall be excluded, and the last day included.” The Court also cited the provisions set
forth by the old Rule 28 of the Rules of Court which stated that "In computing any period of
time prescribed or allowed by the Rules of Court, by order of a court, or by any other
applicable statute, the day of the act, event or default after which the designated period of
time begins to run is not to be included. The last day of the period so computed is to be
included, unless it is a Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the time shall run until the
end of the next day which is neither a Sunday or a legal holiday." In applying this rule, the
Court considered the day as synonymous with the date and we find no cogent reason to
adopt a different view. Pursuant to these provisions and taking into account the dates when
the petitioner received a copy of the decision and issued an appeal thereof, the time elapsed
was more than 15 days, which was more than the allowable period.

While the trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow appeals filed out of time, this
discretion is not unconditional. There must be justifiable reason to warrant such action, since
the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only
mandatory but jurisdictional, and in the absence of any justifying circumstance, the court has
no jurisdiction to approve or admit an appeal filed out of time. In the instant case, the
petitioner failed to prove, or even claim, that his failure to appeal on time was due to fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
Disposition
The petition is DENIED. With costs against the petitioner.

You might also like