GR 144900; (November, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144900 November 18, 2005
DOMINGO MARCIAL, Petitioner, vs. HI-CEMENT CORPORATION/UNION CEMENT CORPORATION, AGAPITO LLOCE, VICTORIANO MURING, and VENERANDO GAMBE, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Domingo Marcial filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Norzagaray, Bulacan. He alleged that respondents forcibly entered his land on April 11, 1995. Respondents, in their answer, claimed they were mere employees of Hi-Cement Corporation (HCC) acting in its interest and that HCC possessed the property under an agreement with its owner. After a relocation survey, the MTC ruled in favor of Marcial, ordering respondents to vacate the encroached area and pay damages. Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTC and dismissed the complaint. The RTC held that Marcial failed to prove his prior possession by preponderance of evidence.
Upon receiving the RTC’s order denying his motion for reconsideration on May 23, 2000, Marcial filed a notice of appeal with the RTC on May 24, which was denied as an improper mode. He then filed a motion for extension to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 2, 2000. The CA denied this motion, stating it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period from notice of the denial order. Marcial filed a motion for reconsideration and an amended motion for extension, but the CA denied reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a petition for review.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition. The legal logic centers on procedural correctness regarding the counting of the reglementary period. The 15-day period to appeal commenced on May 23, 2000, the date Marcial received the RTC order denying his motion for reconsideration. His motion for extension filed on June 2, 2000, was the 10th day, thus filed within the period. The CA’s denial, based on a miscalculation that it was filed on the 16th day, was erroneous.
Furthermore, the Court noted that Marcial’s subsequent amended motion for extension, filed on June 7, 2000 (the 15th day), was also within the reglementary period. The CA’s failure to act on this amended motion and its precipitate denial of the motion for reconsideration constituted a disregard of procedural due process. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the CA’s resolutions and remanded the case to the CA for proper action on the amended motion for extension, reinstating Marcial’s opportunity for appellate review. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not frustrate substantial justice, especially where a litigant’s right to appeal is at stake.