Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
FACTS:
1.Respondent Tarbunal was hired by the petitioner
corporation as security guard on Sept 1996 and was
assigned to one of its clients.
1.Petitioner’s contention:
The petition for certiorari filed with CA was within the
Civil Procedure Rules 1 & 2 Digests
reglementary period pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
on Civ Pro.They further claimed that when the assailed
Order was received on April 3,2000, the petition was filed
on May 31, 2000 which was only the 58th day.
2. Respondent’s contention:
Tarbunal said that he is aware that Sec 4, Rule65 of the
1997 Rules on Civ Pro was later amended and took effect on
September 1, 2000, hence, when the petition was filed with
CA on June 2,2000 was not yet covered by said
amendment.
ISSUE:
WON the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the
reglementary period.(technically, beyond naman talaga.
Nagfile kasi sa 67th day imbis na dapat within 60 days lang.
Tama ba na hindi tinanggap ng CA yung petiton kahitmedyo
lampas ng 60 days yung pagkakafile)
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed
by petitioners seeking to reverse and set aside the
resolution of the CA which dismissed their petition for
review of the decision of the RTC of Lingayen, Pangasinan
on the ground that the petition was filed out of time and the
Resolution denying their MR.Sometime in 1987, private
respondents’ predecessor Florentino Quintos, Sr.,
filed an application for the judicial registration of a certain
land which included petitioners’ land; that the land
registration court grants Quintos application and decreed
the land in Florencion Quinto’s name and OCT No.
227 75 was subsequently issued. Respondents
subsequently filed a complaint for illegal detainer against
petitioners for the latter’s refusal to vacate the subject
land which resulted in petitioners’ ejectment from the
subject property.
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE.
Section 1, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure,
provides that the petition shall be filed and served within 15
days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of
the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or
reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. In the
instant case, it has been established that the resolution
denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of
the trial court’s decision was received by the secretary
of petitioners’ former counsel on March 16, 2000, thus
the last day of the 15-day period within which to file the
petition for review with the respondent court was March 31,
2000. Considering that counsel filed a motion for extension
of time to file a petition for review with the respondent
court only on April 18, 2000, the judgment of the RTC
subject of the petition for review had already become final
and executory.
Civil Procedure Rules 1 & 2 Digests
Consequently, the CA did not err in dismissing the petition
for being filed out of time since it has no more jurisdiction to
entertain the petition much less to alter a judgment.This
Court has invariably ruled that perfection of an appeal in
the manner and within the period laid down by law is not
only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to
perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of
defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the
appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.
The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due
process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the
provisions of the law. The party who seeks to availof the
same must comply with the requirement of the
rules. Failing to do so, theright to appeal is lost
We agree with the CA when it found that the reason
advanced by petitioners’ former counsel, which is that
she received the resolution denying her motion for
reconsideration only on April 3, 2000 as she found it on her
table on the same date,unacceptable. The negligence of her
secretary in failing to immediately give the trial court’s
resolution denying petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration upon receipt to
the counsel and the negligence of counsel to adopt and
arrange matters in order to ensure that official or judicial
communications sent by mail would reach her promptly
cannot be considered excusable. The Court has also often
repeated that the negligence of the clerks which adversely
affect the cases handled by lawyers, isbinding upon the
latter.14
PONENTE: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
.
Facts:
On 21 October 1996, respondent filed a petition in
RTC Manilafor cancellation of entries in the birth
certificate of petitionerminor, to wit: (1) minor’s
surname ‘Herrera’; (2) his filiation
asf a t h e r ; a n d ( 3 ) m a r r i a g e t o m i n o r ’ s m o t h e r ,
Armi, allegingthey are false and that he
m a r r i e d o n l y o n c e w i t h E z p e r a n z a Santos.O n 1 3
January 1997, the RTC issued an Ame nded
O r d e r r e - scheduling the hearing of petition to 26
February 1997. Copyof which was published in
‘Today’ in its Jan 20, 27, and Feb 3,1997 issues, and
were also sent to Armi at No. 418 Arquiza
St.,E r m i t a , M a n i l a ( a d d r e s s p e r m i n o r ’ s b i r t h
c e r t i f i c a t e ) , L o c a l Civil Registrar and Solicitor
General.During the hearing, only OSG appeared but filed
no opposition,while Armi was not present for she did
not receive the Order,t h e a d d r e s s p r o v i d e d b e i n g
w r o n g . O n 1 A p r i l 1 9 9 7 , t h e R T C granted the petition
which became final on 2 June 1997. On 24November
2000, petitioners filed a petition for annulment
of judgment with CA on the grounds
of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction over their perso
n.A r m i a v e r r e d t h a t : ( 1 ) r e s p o n d e n t k n e w a l l
along of her trueaddress where they cohabited
as husband of wife, result of which is the
minor; and (2) she knew of the decision only
on2 6 F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 8 ; h e n c e d u e p r o c e s
s was denied.