GR 53877; (July, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 53877 July 17, 1995
GREGORIO LABITAD, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CARRUF AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from a complaint for recovery of possession filed by Carruf Agricultural Corporation against petitioners over a portion of a 510-hectare land in Bukidnon. The trial court ruled in favor of Carruf, ordering petitioners to vacate and pay damages. Petitioners received the decision on August 17, 1977. They filed a motion for reconsideration on September 14, 1977, which was denied, with notice of denial received on October 25, 1977. On October 27, 1977, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension to file the record on appeal. They deposited the appeal bond on October 28, 1977. The trial court, however, dismissed the appeal as filed out of time, declaring the decision final. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioners perfected their appeal within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners perfected their appeal on time. The legal logic centers on the computation of the appeal period under then Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The 30-day period to appeal commenced upon receipt of the decision on August 17, 1977, but was suspended upon the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration on September 14. The period remained tolled until petitioners received the order of denial on October 25, 1977. The time during which the motion was pending—from September 14 to October 25—is excluded from the computation.
Consequently, the remaining three days of the original appeal period began to run on October 26, making the last day to perfect the appeal October 28, 1977. The filing of the notice of appeal and motion for extension on October 27, and the deposit of the appeal bond on October 28, were therefore within the reglementary period. The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and directed it to decide the petitioners’ appeal on the merits.