G.R. No. L-41192. January 31, 1978.
ONG TIAO SENG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VICTORINO A. SAVELLANO, ALBERTO SAN PEDRO, GLORIA SAN PEDRO, VERNIE FORTES, JAMES R. YAP and ESPERANZA GADDI, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ong Tiao Seng received a copy of the trial court’s decision on January 16, 1975. An amended decision was received by his counsel, Atty. Macario Fernandez, on February 7, 1975. On March 6, 1975, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On March 14, a motion for extension to file the record on appeal was filed, citing Atty. Fernandez’s illness. The record on appeal was filed on March 18. The trial court denied its admission, ruling the motion for extension was filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period, which expired on March 9. The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting the motion lacked a supporting medical certificate and the subsequent motion for reconsideration lacked an affidavit of merit.
Atty. Fernandez was hospitalized on February 21 and died on March 19, 1975. Petitioner argued his counsel’s illness constituted an “accident” justifying relief under Rule 38. The appellate court found no grave abuse of discretion in the denial, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s appeal for being filed out of time.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the rulings of the lower courts. The legal logic centers on the strict application of procedural rules for perfecting an appeal and the requisites for relief under Rule 38. First, the reglementary period to perfect an appeal is mandatory. Any motion for extension must be filed before its expiration. Here, the period ended on March 9, but the motion was filed on March 14, rendering the subsequently filed record on appeal untimely.
Second, the illness of counsel did not constitute a valid “accident” or excusable negligence warranting relief. Although Atty. Fernandez was ill, he was mentally fit to prepare and file a notice of appeal on March 6. This demonstrated the absence of an insurmountable obstacle that could have prevented the timely filing of the motion for extension on or before March 9. As established in Bello v. Fernando, extensions require a justifiable reason like fraud, accident, or excusable negligence without the appellant’s fault, which was not satisfactorily shown.
Third, a petition for relief under Rule 38 requires a showing of a meritorious defense. Petitioner failed to demonstrate the substantive merits of his appeal in his pleadings. The Court examined the records and found no particular circumstances indicating the appeal had potential merit, making its perfection a futile act. Consequently, no grave abuse of discretion attended the denial of the appeal, as procedural rules were correctly applied without a showing of a compelling substantive defense.