GR 112337; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112337 ; January 25, 1996
DR. ANTONIO L. AZORES, petitioner, vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE COLUMBIAN ASSOCIATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dr. Antonio Azores was a proprietary member of the Philippine Columbian Association (PCA), a non-stock corporation. He immigrated to the United States in 1966, obtained American citizenship, and ceased paying membership dues without informing the PCA. Upon his return in 1981, he sought to reactivate his membership. The PCA, having cancelled his certificates for non-surrender during a recall, offered conditional reactivation: validation of only one of his two shares upon payment of arrears. Azores rejected this, insisting on full reinstatement.
Azores filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1991, seeking replacement of his certificates and reinstatement. The SEC Hearing Officer dismissed his complaint. Azores filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on October 16, 1992. He then filed a notice of appeal on October 20, 1992, which was three days late, counting from the last day on October 17, 1992. The SEC dismissed his appeal for being filed out of time.
ISSUE
Whether the SEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Azores’s appeal for being filed out of time.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the SEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The period for appeal is mandatory. Under the SEC’s Revised Rules of Procedure, an appeal from a Hearing Officer’s decision must be filed within 30 days. Petitioner received the order denying his motion for reconsideration on October 16, 1992, making October 17, 1992, the final day for appeal. He filed only on October 20, 1992.
Petitioner’s argument that October 17 (a Saturday) and October 18 (a Sunday) were non-working days is unavailing. At the time, Saturdays were not considered holidays for court filings unless specifically declared. The rule allowing filing on the next Monday if the deadline falls on a Saturday was promulgated only in 1993. His good faith belief is not an excuse for non-compliance with a mandatory period. There was no reason he could not have filed on Monday, October 19.
Furthermore, this petition is one for certiorari under Rule 65, limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The alleged errors pertain to the merits of the Hearing Officer’s decision (e.g., interpretation of by-laws, claim for damages), which are errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. Since petitioner failed to perfect his appeal to the SEC en banc within the reglementary period, he cannot now raise these substantive issues. The SEC’s dismissal of the appeal was in accordance with law.