G.R. No. L-73627 January 29, 1988
Tan Hang, doing business under the name and style of Parañaque Lumber, petitioner, vs. Hon. Ansberto Paredes, as Judge RTC of Makati, M.M. Branch CXL and L.O. Yari Santos, respondents.

FACTS

An action for a sum of money was filed by Tan Hang (petitioner) against L.O. Yari Santos (private respondent) in the Metropolitan Trial Court. After trial, the MTC dismissed the complaint and awarded damages and attorney’s fees to Santos. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the MTC decision in toto. Instead of filing a petition for review as required by procedural rules for appeals from the RTC acting as an appellate court, petitioner erroneously filed a Notice of Appeal on October 10, 1985. The RTC dismissed this notice and directed the remand of records.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), but it was dismissed. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. He thus filed the present petition before the Supreme Court. During its pendency, and in the absence of a restraining order, the private respondent obtained a writ of execution for the judgment award. Petitioner’s counsel admitted in a comment that petitioner had already paid the P7,000.00 judgment award to Santos.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should reverse the appellate court’s dismissal of the petition for review and set aside the final and executed judgment.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal primarily on jurisdictional and procedural grounds, rendering a review of the factual merits unnecessary. The core legal logic is that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The RTC decision was received by petitioner on September 23, 1985. With no motion for reconsideration filed, the period to file the correct remedy—a petition for review—expired on October 8, 1985. The filing of a fatally defective Notice of Appeal on October 10, 1985, did not toll this period. Consequently, the RTC decision became final and executory.
The Court affirmed the IAC’s ruling that a client is bound by the procedural mistakes of counsel, citing Isaac vs. Mendoza. Furthermore, the Court found that the satisfaction of the judgment during the pendency of this petition—the payment of the P7,000.00 award—operated as a bar to the petition. Execution had been carried out, and the case had been rendered moot. The Court also noted that the factual findings of the lower courts, which concluded that the private respondent had fully paid his obligations, were supported by evidence and are generally binding.