G.R. No. L-286; March 29, 1946
FREDESVINDO S. ALVERO, petitioner, vs. M.L. DE LA ROSA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, JOSE R. VICTORIANO, and MARGARITA VILLARICA, respondents.

FACTS

On June 25, 1945, respondent Jose R. Victoriano filed a complaint against petitioner Fredesvindo S. Alvero and Margarita Villarica in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint sought to declare in force a contract of sale of two parcels of land executed by Villarica in favor of Victoriano on October 1, 1940, and to declare null and void a subsequent sale of the same land by Villarica to Alvero on December 31, 1944, for P100,000 in Japanese military notes. After trial, respondent Judge Mariano L. de la Rosa rendered a decision on November 16, 1945, in favor of Victoriano, adjudicating to him the title over the property and dismissing Alvero’s counterclaim. Alvero was notified of the decision on November 28, 1945. He filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, 1945, which was denied on January 3, 1946, with notice of denial received on January 7, 1946. On January 8, 1946, Alvero filed his notice of appeal and record on appeal but failed to file the required P60 appeal bond. The appeal bond was filed only on January 15, 1946. Respondent Victoriano moved to dismiss the appeal. On January 17, 1946, the respondent judge dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appeal bond was filed out of time. Alvero’s motion for reconsideration of this order was denied on January 29, 1946. Alvero then filed this petition for certiorari, with his counsel alleging as an excuse for the late filing of the bond the illness and subsequent death of his wife on January 10, 1946.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Alvero’s appeal for failure to perfect it on time by filing the appeal bond beyond the reglementary period.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. The Court held that rules of court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done have the force of law and are indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with these rules is mandatory. The period for perfecting an appeal (filing notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond) is fixed and cannot be extended except upon application made prior to the expiration of the original period. In this case, the period for perfecting the appeal commenced from November 28, 1945 (notice of judgment), making the last day December 28, 1945. Alvero’s notice and record of appeal filed on January 8, 1946, and his appeal bond filed on January 15, 1946, were therefore filed out of time. The excuse of counsel’s personal misfortune (his wife’s death) did not constitute excusable negligence that would justify relaxing the rules. Counsel could have asked for an extension of time prior to the deadline but failed to do so. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge in dismissing the appeal for late perfection. The petition was dismissed.