GR L 60577; (October, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-60577 October 11, 1983
Josefa Legaspi-Santos, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Consolacion C. Legaspi, and Jesus C. Legaspi, respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from a partition suit over the estate of Fidel Legaspi. Petitioner Josefa Legaspi-Santos, claiming to be a child from Fidel’s first marriage, intervened. In June 1980, the trial court dismissed her intervention and rendered a decision. The parties received copies on different dates, and the court granted extensions for appeal. Petitioner filed two motions for extension, which were granted. She filed a third motion for a 20-day extension on October 8, 1980.
The trial court denied this third motion on October 13, 1980, ruling that the period to appeal had already expired on October 7, 1980, leaving no period to extend. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, attributing the one-day late filing to her counsel’s excusable mistake in computation. The trial court granted reconsideration via an Order dated December 15, 1980, giving her ten more days to perfect her appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant reconsideration and allow an extension of time to appeal after the reglementary period had already expired.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The perfection of an appeal within the period fixed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. The reglementary period for petitioner to appeal expired on October 7, 1980. Her third motion for extension was filed one day late, on October 8. Consequently, the decision had become final and executory as to her.
The Court emphasized that the period for appeal is fixed by statute and cannot be disregarded. A miscomputation by counsel does not suspend the running of the period or prevent the finality of the judgment. To rule otherwise would render the finality of judgments uncertain and dependent on a party’s discretion, undermining judicial stability. Since the period had lapsed, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case and thus acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the Order of December 15, 1980, attempting to revive the lost right to appeal. The appeal was not perfected on time.