GR L 63372; (June, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-63372 June 28, 1983
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, METALLOR TRADING CORPORATION, LORENZO M. SARMIENTO, JR., and MARCELINO TY, respondents.
FACTS
The Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) obtained a favorable judgment in a sum of money case against Metallor Trading Corporation and others on July 6, 1982. The defendants received a copy of the decision on August 13, 1982. Having failed to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period, RCBC moved for execution on October 21, 1982, asserting the judgment had become final and executory.
The defendants opposed the execution and filed a motion to admit their appeal on October 27, 1982. They attributed their failure to appeal on time to the negligence of their former counsel, Atty. Elmer D. Nitura, who allegedly had serious personal and family problems affecting his work. The respondent judge granted the defendants’ motion, denied RCBC’s motion for execution, and admitted the appeal, citing liberality in the rules to serve justice.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in admitting the defendants’ appeal and denying execution after the judgment had become final.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the respondent judge’s order. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of reglementary periods for appeal. Counsel for the defendants received the decision on August 13, 1982, giving them thirty days, or until September 12, 1982, to perfect an appeal by filing a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal under Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Their motion filed on October 27, 1982, was filed long after this period had lapsed, rendering the judgment final and executory. A final judgment is immutable, and the trial court loses jurisdiction to alter it or entertain an appeal.
The Court rejected the claim of counsel’s negligence as a valid excuse for the late appeal. The proper remedy for such a ground would have been a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, but this was also unavailable as the motion was filed beyond Rule 38’s sixty-day period from notice. The negligence of counsel binds the client. Furthermore, the Court noted the defendants’ own lack of diligence, having presented only one witness and subsequently failing to appear at hearings, effectively abandoning their defense. The rules prescribing appeal periods are indispensable to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business and must be strictly complied with. The respondent judge’s order, issued after finality, was issued without jurisdiction.