Case Digest (G.R. No. 50654)
Facts:
Rudy Gleo Armigos v. Court of Appeals, Cristito Mata, and Judge L. D. Carpio, G.R. No. 50654, November 06, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.The respondent private plaintiff, Cristito Mata, sued petitioner Rudy Gleo Armigos in the Municipal Court of Digos, Davao del Sur (Civil Case No. 971) for collection of damages and attorney’s fees. After trial, the municipal court rendered judgment for Mata; a copy of that decision was received by Armigos on 8 June 1977. On 9 June 1977 Armigos filed a notice of appeal in the municipal court, and on 24 June 1977 he completed the other requisites for perfection (appeal bond and payment of appellate docket fee).
When the case was transmitted to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Davao del Sur, Branch V, the presiding judge dismissed the appeal as having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Armigos then filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. No. SP-07192-R) contending that only fifteen (15) days elapsed between his receipt of the municipal decision and the completion of appeal requirements, and that the computation of the appeal period should run by hours (counting the 24-hour cycles from the hour he received the copy) rather than by whole calendar days.
The Court of Appeals rejected the hour-based method as impractical and unreliable, citing Republic of the Philippines v. Encarnacion (87 Phil. 845) for the principle that effectivity or computation tied to a day is by date rather than by precise hour; the CA dismissed the petit...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the period to perfect an appeal be computed by hours (counting 24-hour cycles from the hour a party received notice) or by days/dates excluding the day of the act and including the last day?
- Did the CFI (and consequently the CA) err in dismissing the appeal when petitioner failed to perfect it within the reglementary period, absent proof of fraud, accident, m...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)