GR 183239; (June, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183239 , June 2, 2014
Gregorio De Leon, doing business as G.D.L. Marketing, Petitioner, vs. Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and/or Jesus Chua and Rumi Rungis Milk, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gregorio De Leon filed an action for breach of contract with damages and a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against respondents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision on September 23, 2005, finding respondent Rumi Rungis Milk liable and dismissing the case against Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and Jesus Chua. Petitioner received the decision on October 4, 2005. On October 19, 2005, the last day to file an appeal or motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a “Motion for Time” asking for an additional 10 days to file a motion for partial reconsideration. The RTC denied this motion, ruling the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. Petitioner subsequently filed his Motion for Partial Reconsideration on October 24, 2005. Respondent Rumi Rungis Milk filed its own Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order dated January 9, 2006. On February 13, 2006, petitioner filed a Notice of Partial Appeal from the January 9, 2006 Order. The RTC issued an Order on February 15, 2006, stating petitioner’s notice of partial appeal could not be given due course as it was filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals (CA) later issued a Resolution ordering petitioner’s appellant’s brief stricken off the records and dismissing the appeal, finding it was filed out of time and denied due course by the RTC. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it ordered petitioner’s appellant’s brief filed with it be stricken off the records.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Resolutions. The Court held that the CA correctly ordered petitioner’s appellant’s brief stricken off the records. The RTC Decision dated September 23, 2005 became final as to petitioner when no appeal was perfected after the lapse of the prescribed period. Petitioner received the decision on October 4, 2005, and thus had until October 19, 2005, to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. The filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which the Court characterized as a transgression of a mandatory prohibition, did not toll the reglementary period to appeal. The period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible under the rules. Consequently, petitioner lost his right to appeal the September 23, 2005 decision as of October 19, 2005. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The Court found no satisfactory reason, such as the alleged heavy volume of work, to justify a relaxation of the procedural rules in this case.