GR 89571; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 89571 ; February 6, 1991
FRANCISCO LIM TUPAS and IGNACIO LIM TUPAS, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners received a copy of the Regional Trial Court decision on April 3, 1989. They filed a motion for reconsideration on April 17, 1989, the fourteenth day of the reglementary period. The trial court denied this motion by order dated May 3, 1989, which petitioners’ counsel received on May 9, 1989. The reglementary period to appeal via a petition for review to the Court of Appeals was fifteen days from notice of the judgment. Since a motion for reconsideration was filed, the petitioners only had the remainder of that period to appeal after the motion’s denial. With the motion filed on the fourteenth day, only one day remained. Instead of filing the petition for review on the next day, May 10, 1989, petitioners filed it only on May 23, 1989, rendering it fourteen days late. No motion for extension of time to file was sought from the appellate court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for being filed out of time.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed that the appeal was indisputably tardy. The legal logic is anchored on strict adherence to procedural rules governing periods for appeal. Under prevailing jurisprudence, specifically Lacsamana v. Court of Appeals, when a motion for reconsideration is filed and denied, the appellant has only the remaining period of the original fifteen days to file the petition for review. Here, by filing the motion on the fourteenth day, petitioners consumed almost the entire period, leaving only one day upon notice of the denial. Their counsel’s failure to file within that one-day remainder or to seek an extension constituted fatal negligence. The Court rejected the argument that this failure was excusable neglect, noting counsel’s own impressive credentials as an experienced practitioner and law professor. Clients are generally bound by the mistakes of their counsel. The Court also found the sequence of filing on the last possible days suggestive of a dilatory tactic. Equity cannot be invoked to circumvent positive procedural rules. The maxim aequetas nunquam contravenit legis (equity never contravenes the law) applies. The dismissal of the late appeal did not constitute a denial of due process, as procedural rules are designed to ensure orderly administration of justice and are part of due process itself.