G.R. No. 84294 October 16, 1989
BA FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PONCIANO C. INOPIQUEZ Presiding Judge of Branch XIV of the Regional Trial Court of Manila and WILSON SIY, respondents.

FACTS

BA Finance Corporation filed a replevin suit against Yanky Hardware Company, Inc. and its surety to recover a loan secured by a chattel mortgage. The court ordered the seizure of Yanky’s inventory. Due to Yanky’s financial distress, several creditor banks intervened. During pre-trial, all parties agreed to a public auction of the seized chattels to prevent depreciation. The auction was held, and Wilson Siy emerged as the highest bidder with a P60,000 offer. BA Finance moved to cancel the sale, alleging it was improperly prevented from bidding, and the trial court initially cancelled it due to the “shockingly low” price. However, upon Siy’s posting of a bond, the court reconsidered and upheld the sale.
Siy then filed a motion within the same replevin case, seeking delivery of specific chattels he claimed were sold but not delivered. The trial court appointed commissioners who reported that BA Finance failed to deliver numerous items. The court ultimately ordered BA Finance to deliver the missing chattels or their value, estimated at P2.3 million. BA Finance received a copy of this order on January 23, 1986, and filed a notice of appeal on February 10, 1986. The trial court denied the appeal as filed two days beyond the 15-day reglementary period, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of BA Finance’s notice of appeal for being filed out of time.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the appellate and trial court’s orders. The legal logic hinges on the proper computation of the appeal period. The 15-day period to appeal under the Rules of Court is counted from notice of the final order. The trial court’s order directing delivery of the chattels was dated January 22, 1986. BA Finance received a copy on January 23, 1986. Excluding the first day (January 23) as per statutory computation rules, the period began to run on January 24. The fifteenth day fell on February 7, 1986, a Friday. However, February 7 and 8, 1986 were declared special public holidays due to the Snap Presidential Election and the related public canvassing. Applying the rule that if the last day for filing falls on a holiday, the time extends to the next working day, the deadline was moved to Monday, February 10, 1986. BA Finance’s notice filed on that date was therefore timely. The Court further noted grave equitable considerations, as the order compelled BA Finance to deliver property worth P2.3 million against Siy’s P60,000 payment, suggesting a potential serious miscarriage of justice meriting appellate review. The Court also clarified that Siy’s proper recourse for undelivered auctioned property was an independent action, not a motion in the main replevin case.