G.R. No. 128421 January 26, 1998
TRANS INTERNATIONAL, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS; NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION; PERLA A. SEGOVIA and GILBERTO PASTORAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Trans International filed a complaint for damages against respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) and two of its officers before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20960, arising from the rescission of a contract for the supply and delivery of woodpoles. On May 22, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, awarding substantial amounts including unrealized profits and attorney’s fees. Respondents received a copy of the decision on June 6, 1996, and filed a motion for reconsideration on June 19, 1996. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration via an order dated August 2, 1996. A copy of this order was personally delivered to NAPOCOR’s office on Friday, August 23, 1996, at 4:54 p.m., and was received by clerk Ronald T. Lapuz. Lapuz placed the order inside his desk drawer, intending to deliver it to the handling lawyer the next working day. However, Lapuz was unable to report for work on the following Monday and Tuesday, August 26 and 27, 1996, due to illness from a tooth extraction. The order was retrieved from his drawer only in the afternoon of August 27 and was immediately forwarded to the lawyer’s secretary. At 3:10 p.m. on August 27, respondents, through counsel, filed their notice of appeal. Petitioner filed a motion for execution, contending the decision had become final and executory due to the late appeal. Respondents opposed, citing the unforeseeable oversight and accident due to their employee’s illness. The trial court denied respondents’ notice of appeal for being filed out of time and granted petitioner’s motion for execution. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition, annulled the trial court’s order, and directed it to give due course to the appeal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to respondents’ appeal despite the one-day delay in filing the notice of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that while the general rule requires strict compliance with the rules on appeal, and failure to do so results in the loss of the right to appeal, this requirement can be relaxed based on strong compelling reasons such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof. The peculiar circumstances of the case—where the one-day delay was due to the unforeseen illness of the receiving clerk, the delay was properly explained, the amount involved was enormous (P37,554,414.99), and the factual and legal bases of the award were being seriously questioned—strongly demanded a review on the merits. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense so as to override substantial justice. The test for substantial justice and equity considerations was adequately met by respondents to overcome the one-day delay in perfecting their appeal.