G.R. No. 199354; June 26, 2013
Wilson T. Go, Petitioner, vs. BPI Finance Corporation, Respondent.

FACTS

BPI Finance Corporation (BPI) filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against Wilson T. Go before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati. BPI alleged that Go, as a cardholder, incurred credit charges amounting to ₱77,970.91. Go denied liability, arguing the credit card was a company account issued to him in his capacity as Executive Vice-President of Noah’s Ark Merchandising. At pre-trial, the parties agreed to the truth of the contents of the Credit Card Application, a letter dated February 16, 2000 sent to Go at his office, and several Statements of Account. Go failed to present evidence during trial, leading the MeTC to deem the case submitted. On April 23, 2008, the MeTC ruled in favor of BPI, holding Go personally liable for the amount plus interest, penalty, attorney’s fees, and costs. Go appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which fully affirmed the MeTC decision in a ruling dated September 4, 2009. Go’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an order received by his counsel on November 26, 2009. On December 10, 2009, Go filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a motion for a 30-day extension to file a petition for review, up to January 10, 2010. As January 10 was a Sunday, he filed his petition on January 11, 2010. On May 4, 2010, the CA issued a resolution partly granting the motion but allowing only an additional 15 days, making the deadline December 25, 2009. The CA denied admission of the petition for being filed out of time. Go’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on October 12, 2011.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied Wilson T. Go’s petition for review for having been filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirming the CA’s resolutions. The Court held that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Under Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review with the CA must be filed within 15 days from notice of the decision or denial of a motion for reconsideration. The CA may grant only one extension of 15 days upon a proper motion and payment of fees within the reglementary period. No further extension is allowed except for compelling reasons. The Court ruled that Go’s request for a 30-day extension was not in conformity with the rule, which permits only a 15-day extension. He could not assume his motion would be granted, much less for the full 30 days requested. The CA’s discretionary grant of only 15 days was proper. His filing on January 11, 2010, was beyond the extended deadline of December 25, 2009, rendering the petition out of time. The Court emphasized that the perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the lower court’s judgment final and executory. The Court also noted that, even on the merits, the factual findings of the lower courts were unanimous and binding absent grave abuse of discretion.