GR 128421; (October, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128421 October 12, 1998
TRANS INTERNATIONAL, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS; NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION; PERLA A. SEGOVIA and GILBERTO A. PASTORAL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Trans International filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s decision dated January 26, 1998, which had denied its petition. The core issue revolves around the National Power Corporation’s (NAPOCOR) failure to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period from a trial court decision. NAPOCOR’s appeal was filed one day late. The excuse for the delay was an affidavit from receiving clerk Ronald Lapuz, who stated that he received the court order at 4:54 p.m. on a Friday, placed it in his drawer intending to deliver it the next working day, but then got sick due to a tooth extraction and was absent on the following Monday and Tuesday. He admitted forgetting to deliver the order immediately despite counsel’s instruction. The Court of Appeals had originally considered this delay excusable, applying an exception to the general rule on the timeliness of appeals, and found grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the one-day delay in filing the notice of appeal by respondent NAPOCOR constitutes an excusable negligence that warrants an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional rule on the timely perfection of an appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the motion for reconsideration, SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution, and declared the trial court’s decision as having attained finality. The Court ruled that the reasons advanced by NAPOCOR for the tardy appeal do not fall under the recognized exceptions to the strict rule on the timeliness of appeals. The affidavit of the receiving clerk revealed forgetfulness, not accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The Court noted the clerk’s failure to deliver the order on Saturday despite no evidence it was a non-working day, the lack of independent proof (like a medical certificate) for the alleged illness, and the admission of forgetfulness despite specific instructions. Forgetfulness is not a valid excuse. Furthermore, for an exception to apply, the appeal must be “impressed with merit,” and NAPOCOR failed to demonstrate this. The trial court’s decision, which awarded damages based on substantiated evidence, enjoys a presumption of validity. Relaxing the rule based on the circumstances presented would undermine the policy of finality of judgments.