G.R. No. 155251 ; December 8, 2004
ARNULFO EDA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and REYNALDO SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Reynaldo Santos filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner Arnulfo Eda before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Santos alleged that under a business arrangement, he provided Eda with funds to be loaned to Eda’s officemates, with Eda collecting payments and remitting them to Santos after deducting a commission. Santos claimed Eda failed to remit collected payments totaling P1,200,000.00. Eda, in his answer, contended the invested amount was only P100,000.00 and that collection failed as some borrowers absconded. The RTC ruled in favor of Santos, ordering Eda to pay P1,185,030.00 with interest and attorney’s fees.
Eda received the RTC decision on May 28, 2001. He filed a motion for reconsideration on June 11, 2001, which was denied on July 11, 2001; he received the denial order on July 17, 2001. On July 27, 2001, Eda filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC denied due course to the appeal, ruling it was filed beyond the reglementary period. Eda then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed. The CA affirmed the RTC’s finding that the appeal was filed out of time and that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and in not applying liberal construction of procedural rules to allow the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the period for appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. An appeal by notice of appeal is perfected only upon the filing of the notice within the reglementary period. The records show Eda received the order denying his motion for reconsideration on July 17, 2001. He then had only until July 27, 2001, to file his notice of appeal, pursuant to the 15-day period under the Rules. His filing on July 27, 2001, was already the 10th day, making it nine days late from the last day to appeal, which should have been July 18, 2001. The Court found no compelling reason to exempt Eda from this mandatory period. The payment of an appeal fee does not perfect an appeal filed out of time. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and the RTC’s decision had thus become final and executory.
On the substantive issue questioning the RTC’s jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction. The principal claim in the amended complaint was P1,200,000.00, which is within the RTC’s exclusive original jurisdiction under the law in force at the time the complaint was filed. The petitioner’s challenge on this ground was therefore without merit.