IN THE MATTER OF THE CONFIRMATION OF ARBITRATOR’S AWARD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT No. 876; P. J. KEINER COMPANY, LTD., GAVINO UNCHUAN and INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioners-appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, intervenor-movant-appellant.
FACTS
Petitioners-appellees, P. J. Kiener Co. Ltd., Gavino Unchuan and International Construction Corporation, claimed P3,601,971.84 from the Armed Forces of the Philippines for extra work done as contractors on the Mactan Airfield. The Secretary of National Defense was willing to pay only P659,935. The parties submitted the dispute to arbitration under Republic Act 876. On April 21, 1961, the arbitrator awarded P2,372,331.40 to the claimants. The claimants filed a petition for confirmation of the award in the Court of First Instance of Cebu on May 19, 1961. The Armed Forces, through the Secretary of National Defense, was furnished a copy but filed no answer, instead sending a letter stating the project was a U.S.-Philippines joint venture under the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement financed by U.S. funds, and that the arbitrator’s decision, though accepted by the General Military Council, needed concurrence from the U.S. government’s JUSMAG to be binding. The court heard the petition ex parte and rendered a decision on July 3, 1961. On December 12, 1961, after a writ of execution was issued and garnishment made, the Republic of the Philippines filed a motion for intervention with a motion to set aside the decision and stay execution, arguing the arbitration was improper absent a contractual stipulation and reiterating the need for JUSMAG concurrence. Execution was later stayed as parties attempted settlement. On July 28, 1965, the Secretary of National Defense paid P659,935, leaving a balance of P1,712,396.40 based on the award. On October 1, 1966, the trial court denied the Republic’s motion for intervention and reconsideration, holding it had jurisdiction to confirm the award, service of the petition on the Secretary was sufficient, and intervention was not allowed after the case was disposed of. The Republic appealed. Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Republic lacked personality to appeal and the decision was final. The Supreme Court deferred action. The appellant Republic failed to file its printed record on appeal on time, filing it almost four months late on September 8, 1967, citing excusable negligence due to a clerk misplacing the notice.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure to file the printed record on appeal within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, the appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court found the excuse for the delay-the receiving clerk’s inadvertent misplacement of the notice-to be inexcusable negligence. Appellate courts disfavor such excuses, viewing them as habitual subterfuges for failing to observe procedural rules. The appellees’ earlier motion to dismiss did not suspend the period for filing the printed record on appeal since the period had already lapsed when that motion was filed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
