Case Digest (UDK-1737)
Facts:
The case involves Cornelio Antiquera as the plaintiff-appellant and Vicente M. Tupasi as the defendant-appellee in a civil case concerning the collection of a sum of money, specifically civil case 226, which was filed in the municipal court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. The municipal court rendered its decision on June 15, 1966, which was received by Antiquera on September 17, 1966. Following this, Antiquera filed a motion for reconsideration on September 21, 1966. The municipal court subsequently modified its decision on January 12, 1967, reducing the amount awarded to Antiquera from P500 to P100. Antiquera received a copy of this amended decision on March 7, 1967. On March 21, 1967, he filed a "Further Motion for Reconsideration," arguing that the amended decision lacked factual and legal basis. This motion was denied on September 11, 1967. Antiquera perfected his appeal to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya on October 5, 1967. However, Tupasi moved to di...
Case Digest (UDK-1737)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Cornelio Antiquera
- Defendant-Appellee: Vicente M. Tupasi
Case Background:
- The case originated as Civil Case No. 226 (collection of a sum of money) in the Municipal Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
- A decision was rendered on June 15, 1966, and a copy was received by Antiquera on September 17, 1966.
- On September 21, 1966, Antiquera filed a motion for reconsideration.
- On January 12, 1967, the Municipal Court modified its decision, reducing the amount awarded to Antiquera from P500 to P100. A copy of the amended decision was received by Antiquera on March 7, 1967.
Further Proceedings:
- On March 21, 1967, Antiquera filed a "Further Motion for Reconsideration," arguing that the amended decision lacked factual and legal basis. This motion was denied on September 11, 1967.
- On October 5, 1967, Antiquera perfected his appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Nueva Vizcaya.
- Tupasi moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming it was filed out of time. The CFI initially denied the motion, holding that the "Further Motion for Reconsideration" interrupted the appeal period. However, on November 13, 1968, the CFI reversed itself and dismissed the appeal, finding that the appeal was filed beyond the 15-day period.
Key Dates and Calculations:
- From March 7, 1967 (receipt of amended decision) to March 21, 1967 (filing of "Further Motion for Reconsideration"), 14 days elapsed.
- From October 3, 1967 (alleged receipt of denial order) to October 5, 1967 (perfection of appeal), 2 more days elapsed, totaling 16 days—exceeding the 15-day appeal period.
Allegations by Antiquera:
- He argued that filing a motion for reconsideration on the last day of the appeal period grants an additional day to perfect the appeal upon denial.
- He claimed that the date "October 3, 1967" in his "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal" was a typographical error, and he actually received the denial order on October 5, 1967, as evidenced by a registry return receipt.
CFI Ruling on the Alleged Error:
- On March 17, 1969, the CFI denied Antiquera's motion to correct the alleged typographical error, finding no supporting evidence in the record and noting the absence of the registry return receipt.
Appeal to Higher Courts:
- On March 31, 1969, Antiquera appealed the CFI's order to the Court of Appeals.
- On June 26, 1974, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, as the issues raised were purely legal.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- The timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional issue and must be strictly complied with.
- A motion for reconsideration filed within the appeal period interrupts the running of the period, but the appeal must still be perfected within the remaining time after the motion is denied.
- The resolution of factual disputes, such as the date of receipt of a court order, is essential to determine compliance with procedural rules.