GR 127697; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127697 February 25, 1999
ALEX DEMATA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROSARITO F. DABALOS and FRANCISCO AALA, respondents.
FACTS
Francisco Aala filed an unlawful detainer case against Alex Demata before the Butuan City Court. Demata moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the assessed value of the property placed it under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. The City Court granted the dismissal on March 13, 1995. Aala appealed to the RTC, which reversed the dismissal order on May 13, 1996. Demata received this adverse decision on May 17, 1996, filed a motion for reconsideration on May 27, which was denied on July 22, 1996. Demata received the denial order on July 30, 1996.
On August 5, 1996, Demata filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review. The CA granted a 15-day extension. Demata filed the petition for review, which was sent by registered mail on August 19, 1996. The CA dismissed the petition for being filed beyond the reglementary period. Demata’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied for being filed two days late. Demata then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review for being filed beyond the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Demata failed to file his petition for review within the prescribed period. Under Rule 42, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for review from an RTC decision exercised in its appellate jurisdiction must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or denial of a motion for reconsideration. The reglementary period is non-extendible, except that the Court of Appeals may grant one additional period of fifteen (15) days only upon a proper motion filed before the original period expires.
The material dates are clear. Demata received the RTC order denying his motion for reconsideration on July 30, 1996. The original 15-day period to file the petition for review thus expired on August 14, 1996. While his motion for extension filed on August 5 was timely, the extended period granted would have ended on August 29, 1996. However, the petition itself was sent by registered mail only on August 19, 1996. This date is already beyond the original deadline of August 14, 1996. Since the filing of the motion for extension did not suspend the running of the original period, the petition was indisputably filed late. The Court of Appeals, therefore, committed no error in dismissing the petition for being time-barred. Procedural rules on reglementary periods are mandatory and jurisdictional.