G.R. No. L-12104; March 31, 1959
CASIMIRO GARGANTA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 12083 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, judgment was rendered on April 10, 1956, in favor of petitioners Casimiro Garanta and Catalina Donato. Respondents received notice of the judgment on April 18, 1956. On May 16, 1956, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court on June 4, 1956. Notice of this denial was sent via registered mail to respondents’ counsel at his address of record. The postmaster sent a notice to claim the registered letter on June 6, 1956, but counsel failed to claim it within five days. Counsel actually received the notice on June 18, 1956, the same day respondents filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. Petitioners objected to the appeal, arguing it was filed out of time. The trial court allowed the appeal, and petitioners reiterated their motion to dismiss in the Court of Appeals, which denied it. Petitioners then filed this petition for prohibition and preliminary injunction to restrain the Court of Appeals from proceeding with the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, considering the timeliness of the respondents’ notice of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, making the preliminary injunction final. The Court held that the respondents’ motion for reconsideration was pro forma because it merely alleged the decision was “completely against the evidence” and “against the law” without specifying the findings or legal bases. As such, it did not interrupt the running of the 30-day appeal period under Rule 41, Section 3. Even assuming the motion tolled the period, the appeal was still filed late. Under Rule 27, Section 8, service by registered mail is deemed complete five days after the first notice if the addressee fails to claim the mail. Here, counsel failed to claim the notice within five days from June 6, 1956, so service was deemed effective on June 11, 1956. The remaining two days of the appeal period ended on June 13, 1956. The appeal filed on June 18, 1956, was therefore beyond the reglementary period, rendering the judgment final and executory. The negligence of respondents’ counsel in not claiming the mail does not excuse the delay. The Court also ruled that the trial court’s allowance of the appeal and the Court of Appeals’ denial of the motion to dismiss did not preclude a challenge to jurisdiction, as an appeal filed out of time deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction, an issue that may be raised at any stage.