GR 44976 R; (July, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44976 -R July 31, 1974
Cornelio Antiquera, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Vicente M. Tupasi, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Cornelio Antiquera appealed a collection case decision from the Municipal Court of Bayombong to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Nueva Vizcaya. The procedural timeline is critical. After receiving an amended decision on March 7, 1967, Antiquera filed a “Further Motion for Reconsideration” on March 21, 1967. This motion was denied on September 11, 1967. Antiquera perfected his appeal to the CFI on October 5, 1967. The defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, arguing the 15-day appeal period had lapsed.
The CFI initially denied the motion to dismiss, ruling the “Further Motion for Reconsideration” interrupted the appeal period. However, it later reversed itself, dismissing the appeal. It calculated that 14 days elapsed from receipt of the amended decision to the filing of the motion, and 2 days from receipt of the denial order to perfecting the appeal, totaling 16 days, thus exceeding the 15-day limit. Antiquera contested this, claiming a typographical error in his pleading regarding the date of receipt of the denial order.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly certified the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that the issues raised are purely of law.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that certification was improper and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. The core issue—the timeliness of Antiquera’s appeal—hinges on a factual determination: the exact date he received the order denying his “Further Motion for Reconsideration.” Antiquera asserts he received it on October 5, 1967 (the appeal date), which would make the appeal timely, as the period would be deemed interrupted until that receipt. The appellee relies on a prior pleading stating receipt was on October 3, 1967, which would make the appeal late.
This is fundamentally a question of fact requiring the examination and weighing of evidence, such as the alleged registry return receipt. The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals includes reviewing questions of fact. Since resolving this factual dispute is prerequisite to determining the legal issue of appeal timeliness, the case falls within the appellate court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, being not a trier of facts, ordered remand for the Court of Appeals to resolve the factual question and decide the case accordingly.