GR 13841; (September, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. 13841 and L-141133; September 25, 1918
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner-appellee, vs. JOAQUIN ABRION, ET AL., objectors. FRANCISCO G. PAR, appellant.
FACTS:
The Director of Lands filed a petition for cadastral registration of 675 parcels of land in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Appellant Francisco G. Par claimed ownership of Lots No. 2687, 3193, and 3199. The Court of First Instance denied his claim to Lots No. 2687 and 3193 in a decision dated June 29, 1916, with notification on March 2, 1917. Par filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on March 17, 1917. He then filed a bill of exceptions on April 4, 1917, which was approved by the judge on April 14, 1917. However, Par took no action to file the certified copy of the bill of exceptions with the Supreme Court until May 10, 1918, well beyond the 60-day period required under Rule 14 of the Supreme Court. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 14. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss on July 9, 1918. Par subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration through new counsel.
ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court may declare a bill of exceptions abandoned and dismiss the appeal for the appellant’s failure to cause the filing of a certified copy of the bill of exceptions within the 60-day period prescribed by Rule 14.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld the dismissal of the appeal. While Section 143 of Act No. 190 (as amended) imposes a duty on the clerk of the Court of First Instance to transmit the bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court, Rule 14 places a separate and affirmative obligation on the appellant to cause the certified copy to be filed with the Supreme Court within 60 days after the bill is filed in the lower court. The appellant’s inaction from April 14, 1917, to May 10, 1918, without any effort to comply with Rule 14, justified the dismissal. The appellant cannot excuse his failure by blaming the clerk of court; the appellant has a remedy if the clerk fails to perform his duty, but this does not relieve the appellant of his own obligation under the rules. The Court emphasized that Rule 14 had been consistently enforced for over seventeen years, and non-compliance warrants dismissal of the appeal.