GR L 57204; (March, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-57204. March 14, 1988.
FORTUNATO BORRE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE ARTEMON D. LUNA, and THE MANOTOK SERVICES, INCORPORATED, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, lessees of property from respondent Manotok Services, Inc., filed a complaint to recover rentals paid. They alleged the leased land was part of the Estero de Sunog-Apo and Estero de Maypajo, thus public land not owned by the company. The trial court dismissed the complaint, citing Presidential Decree No. 1670 which declared the property expropriated, thereby recognizing the company’s ownership. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the titles erroneously included public esteros. Their motion was denied.
Petitioners received the order denying their second motion for reconsideration on January 30, 1981. January 31, 1981 was the last day to perfect their appeal. They filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension by registered mail on that date. However, they filed the required appeal bond only on February 2, 1981, two days late. Consequently, the trial court dismissed their appeal for failure to perfect it on time. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioners’ appeal due to the late filing of the appeal bond.
RULING
No. The Court affirmed the dismissal. Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The 1964 Rules of Court, applicable at the time, required the filing of a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal within thirty days from notice of judgment. While petitioners filed their notice of appeal on the last day, their appeal bond was filed two days after the period had lapsed. The failure to file any component on time warrants the appeal’s dismissal under Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
The Court rejected the claim of “excusable negligence” based on an alleged honest belief about Saturday court hours. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must comply strictly with procedural rules. The trial court’s decision became final and executory upon the lapse of the appeal period without timely perfection. The subsequent Interim Rules, which dispensed with the appeal bond, apply only to pending, undetermined actions, not to those already final. Therefore, the appellate courts committed no error.