G.R. No. L-14551; July 31, 1961
MAXIMO BAQUIRAN, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. DELFIN B. FLORES and TRINIDAD L. AURELIO, respondents.

FACTS

Trinidad L. Aurelio filed a collection suit against Maximo Baquiran in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. After the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings, the trial court set the hearing for July 19, 1957. Notice was sent only to Atty. Santiago Ranada, Baquiran’s original counsel of record. Neither Baquiran nor his counsel appeared at the hearing. The court, in their absence, allowed Aurelio to present evidence and rendered judgment against Baquiran on July 19, 1957. Atty. Ranada received a copy of this decision on July 25, 1957, and Baquiran received his personal copy on July 30, 1957.
Baquiran, through new counsel, filed a verified motion for reconsideration on August 7, 1957, which the trial court denied on August 29, 1957. Prior to this denial, on August 27, 1957, Baquiran filed an ex-parte motion for an extension to perfect his appeal, which the court granted. He subsequently filed his record on appeal on September 12, 1957. The trial court disapproved the record on appeal, stating appeal was not the proper remedy. Baquiran then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to give due course to his appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that the record on appeal was filed out of time. Baquiran appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for mandamus on the ground that Baquiran’s record on appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the record on appeal was indeed filed late. The reglementary period to perfect an appeal began to run from July 25, 1957, when Atty. Ranada, the counsel of record, was served with notice of the judgment. The period expired on August 25, 1957. Atty. Ranada remained the counsel of record because Baquiran’s prior informal manifestations of dissatisfaction did not constitute a formal withdrawal or dismissal of counsel as required by law. The filing of the verified motion for reconsideration on August 7, 1957, did not interrupt the running of the appeal period because it was not a valid motion for new trial; it lacked the requisite affidavits of merit. Consequently, the trial court’s order of August 27, 1957, granting an extension was issued two days after the original appeal period had already lapsed on August 25, and was therefore invalid. When Baquiran filed his record on appeal on September 12, 1957, it was forty-nine days from notice, well beyond the thirty-day period. Mandamus cannot compel a court to approve an appeal perfected out of time.