GR L 1460; (January, 1948) (Digest)
March 10, 2026GR L 1529; (January, 1948) (Digest)
March 10, 2026G.R. No. L-1460; January 30, 1948
ALLISON J. GIBBS, FINLEY J. GIBBS and ESTATE OF A. D. GIBBS, plaintiffs, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA (Branch V), BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR., and LUZON SURETY CO., defendants.
FACTS
Plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory relief concerning a mortgage debt and its release during the Japanese occupation. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendants’ counsel was notified of the judgment on October 26, 1946. On the last day of the 30-day reglementary period to file a motion for new trial (November 25, 1946), defendants filed a motion for extension of time. The actual petition to set aside the judgment was filed one day late, on November 26, 1946. The trial court denied this petition on December 24, 1946. On December 27, 1946, defendants filed their notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond. Plaintiffs objected, arguing the judgment had become final on November 25. The trial court allowed the record on appeal, holding that its order denying the petition to set aside the judgment was tantamount to granting the earlier motion for extension. Plaintiffs then filed this original action to annul the order allowing the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the record on appeal, despite the petition to set aside the judgment being filed one day beyond the reglementary period.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. While it did not expressly rule on whether the denial order impliedly granted the extension, it held that the one-day delay in filing the petition to set aside the judgment was due to excusable neglect by the defendants’ counsel. The Court considered the heavy workload and circumstances described by counsel, which the trial court also implicitly considered. Since the delay was excusable, the filing on the 31st day was deemed within the period. Consequently, the subsequent appeal was timely, and the trial court did not act without jurisdiction, in excess thereof, or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the record on appeal.
AI Generated by Armztrong.