GR 140630; (August, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140630 ; August 12, 2004
YUSUKE FUKUZUMI, petitioner, vs. SANRITSU GREAT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, TETSUJI MARUYAMA, AKIRA KUBOTA, YUKIO MATSUZAKA, respondent.
FACTS
The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision against petitioner Yusuke Fukuzumi, ordering him to pay various sums of money to the respondents. Fukuzumi received the decision on February 9, 1999, and filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He received the order of denial on May 5, 1999. The reglementary period to perfect his appeal by filing a notice of appeal expired on May 6, 1999. However, Fukuzumi filed his notice of appeal only on May 7, 1999, one day late. Consequently, the trial court issued an order on June 2, 1999, denying his notice of appeal.
Fukuzumi then filed a petition for relief from the order of denial, alleging that his counsel suffered from high blood pressure on May 6, 1999, which prevented the timely filing of the notice. He attached a medical certificate dated June 18, 1999, advising his counsel to rest from May 6 to 8. The trial court denied the petition for relief, prompting Fukuzumi to elevate the matter via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for relief from the denial of appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the trial court’s ruling. The legal logic is anchored on the proper application of remedies and the stringent requirements for excusable negligence. A party prevented from taking an appeal due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence may file a petition for relief under Rule 38, Section 2. However, the Court found that Fukuzumi failed to establish excusable negligence.
The medical certificate, issued over a month after the fact, was deemed an afterthought. The counsel was examined and advised to rest on May 6, yet he managed to prepare and file the notice of appeal on May 7, during his purported rest period. This inconsistency belied the claim of incapacity. Furthermore, Fukuzumi did not mention his counsel’s illness in the late notice of appeal itself, raising doubts about the veracity of the claim.
The negligence was therefore inexcusable. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply renders the judgment final and executory. Clients are bound by the negligence of their counsel. No exceptional circumstances justified relaxing the rules. Thus, the trial court correctly denied the petition for relief, and the Supreme Court found no reversible error.