GR 134039; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134039 , December 21, 2004
HEMINA M. ONGPAUCO and DAVE ALLEN M. MAJAROCON, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LOLITA R. ALAMAYRI, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Lolita Alamayri operated a grocery store and resided in a unit within a building owned by petitioner Hemina Ongpauco and her spouse. After Lolita’s lease expired and she refused to vacate, Hemina filed an ejectment suit. Prior to the filing, on May 3, 1991, Hemina physically assaulted the pregnant Lolita at her store, with Hemina’s relatives, including petitioner Dave Allen Majarocon, preventing Lolita’s employees from intervening. A subsequent similar altercation occurred on May 15. On May 17, Hemina and another relative nailed shut the door to Lolita’s residential unit. Lolita suffered a miscarriage on May 31, which she attributed to the assaults.
Lolita filed a complaint for damages. The Regional Trial Court ruled in her favor, awarding moral and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in a ruling dated November 14, 1997.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review the Court of Appeals’ decision, given the petitioners’ claim that their motion for reconsideration was timely filed, thereby affecting the finality of the judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Court of Appeals’ decision had become final and unappealable. The legal logic hinges on the jurisdictional requirement of perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period. Official records from the Court of Appeals showed petitioners’ counsel received the assailed decision on December 3, 1997, starting the 15-day period to appeal or move for reconsideration, which expired on December 18, 1997. Petitioners’ bare allegation of receiving the decision on December 11, 1997, via a security guard, is unsubstantiated and cannot prevail over the official registry receipt. Consequently, their motion for reconsideration filed on December 27, 1997, was nine days late.
The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is statutory, and its timely perfection is mandatory and jurisdictional. Once a decision becomes final, it becomes immutable, even if allegedly erroneous, based on public policy considerations favoring the finality of judgments. The Court refused to review the factual findings, as a petition for review under Rule 45 generally deals with questions of law, not fact, and no compelling exception was present. Thus, the dismissal was grounded on both procedural tardiness and lack of merit.