G.R. No. L-29345 May 31, 1977
ARTURO F.W. TANTOCO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE HILARION JARENCIO, BR. XXIII, CFI, MANILA, THE GENERAL MILK (PHIL.), INC., and THE SHERIFF, MALOLOS, BULACAN, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 63494, General Milk (Phil.), Inc. filed a complaint against Arturo Tantoco to recover a sum of money. Tantoco failed to answer, leading the trial court to declare him in default and render an ex-parte judgment against him on April 18, 1966. Tantoco claimed he learned of the judgment only in September 1966 during its execution and filed a petition for relief on January 29, 1967. He argued improper service of summons, alleging it was received by his 22-year-old son, Abelardo, whom he described as mentally incompetent. The trial court, after receiving evidence, found Abelardo sufficiently intelligent based on his ability to perform store tasks, sign checks, and handle money, thus upholding the validity of substituted service. The court denied the petition for relief on February 27, 1968.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied Tantoco’s petition for mandamus, which sought to compel the trial court to give due course to his appeal from the order denying his petition for relief, given the alleged procedural defects in perfecting that appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolution, denying the petition. The legal logic rests on the petitioner’s failure to perfect his appeal within the reglementary periods, rendering the trial court’s judgment final and unappealable. First, the petition for relief from the April 1966 judgment was filed well beyond the 60-day period from knowledge of the judgment (sometime in September 1966) and the 6-month absolute deadline, making it void. Second, regarding the appeal from the order denying the petition for relief, while the notice of appeal was timely filed, the appeal bond was filed five days late. The perfection of an appeal requires the simultaneous filing of the notice of appeal and the appeal bond within the reglementary period. The late filing of the bond meant the appeal was not perfected, leaving the trial court’s order final. The Court also noted the petitioner’s counsel abused judicial processes through deliberate misrepresentations in pleadings and use of offensive language, warranting censure and the imposition of treble costs against him. Thus, no mandamus could issue to compel a void act, as the right to appeal was lost through non-compliance with mandatory procedural rules.