GR 38006; (May, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38006 May 16, 1978
NATALIA DE LAS ALAS, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BENJAMIN RELOVA, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners received a copy of an adverse trial court decision on September 9, 1972. They timely filed a motion for a 15-day extension to file a motion for reconsideration, which the court granted, extending the deadline to October 24, 1972. However, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on October 7, 1972, well within the original 30-day period. The motion was denied on November 9, 1972, with notice received by petitioners on November 16. They filed their notice of appeal and appeal bond on November 20, 1972. The trial court, upon private respondents’ motion, dismissed the appeal as filed out of time, reasoning that the period to appeal was not extended by the granted motion for extension because petitioners did not utilize the full extension period. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners perfected their appeal within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the appeal was perfected on time. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of the granted extension. The Court ruled that when a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is granted, the full extended period becomes available to the movant. Filing the motion for reconsideration before the expiration of this extended period does not constitute a waiver of the extension nor render the court’s order functus officio. The period to appeal is suspended upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Upon denial of that motion, the remaining period to perfect an appeal continues to run. Here, the original 30-day period to appeal commenced on September 9. The filing of the motion for reconsideration on October 7 suspended this period with three days remaining. When notice of the denial was received on November 16, the three-day remainder began to run, expiring on November 19, a Sunday. Therefore, the filing of the notice of appeal and bond on the next working day, November 20, was timely. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should not be applied rigidly to defeat substantial justice, especially where counsel demonstrated diligence and the error involved a debatable legal point. Litigations should be decided on their merits, not on technicalities.