Facts:

The case involves Rosa Bracamonte and Eusebio Calderon as petitioners against the Court of Appeals and Jose J. Justiniani as respondents. The events leading to this case began with Civil Case No. 488 in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, where a judgment was rendered on September 3, 1949, dismissing the action initiated by the petitioners against the respondent Justiniani. The petitioners received notice of this judgment on September 13, 1949. Subsequently, on September 19, 1949, they filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which was denied on October 7, 1949. The petitioners were notified of this denial on the same day. On October 31, 1949, they filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond; however, the record on appeal was only submitted on November 7, 1949. The respondent opposed the approval of the record on the grounds that it was filed seven days beyond the 30-day period allowed for filing an appeal, excluding the time during whi...

Facts:

1. Judgment and Motion for New Trial:

   • In Civil Case No. 488 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, a judgment was rendered on September 3, 1949, dismissing the action filed by Rosa Bracamonte and Eusebio Calderon (petitioners) against Jose J. Justiniani (respondent).
   • The petitioners received notice of the judgment on September 13, 1949, and filed a motion for a new trial on September 19, 1949, based on newly discovered evidence. This motion was denied on October 7, 1949, with notice received on the same day.

2. Filing of Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal:

   • On October 31, 1949, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond. However, the record on appeal was filed only on November 7, 1949.
   • The respondent opposed the approval of the record on appeal, arguing that it was filed seven days after the expiration of the 30-day reglementary period, excluding the time during which the motion for new trial was pending.

3. Petitioners' Defense for Delay:

   • The petitioners claimed that the delay in filing the record on appeal was due to their attorney fleeing to Cebu City to escape political persecution and being unable to return to San Carlos earlier than November 4, 1949, because of a typhoon on November 1, 1949.

4. Dismissal of Appeal and Motion for Relief:

   • On November 26, 1949, Judge Eduardo Enriquez dismissed the appeal, ruling that the record on appeal was filed out of time.
   • On December 7, 1949, the petitioners filed an ex parte motion for relief, seeking to set aside the judgment of September 3, 1949, and order a new trial. They argued that their failure to present the original deed of sale was due to honest mistake and excusable negligence by their counsel.

5. Denial of Motion for Relief and Amended Record on Appeal:

   • Judge Jose Teodoro, Sr., denied the motion for relief on January 24, 1950.
   • The petitioners filed an amended record on appeal on February 12, 1950, which was disallowed by Judge Teodoro on February 18, 1950. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied on March 17, 1950.

6. Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals:

   • The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judges Enriquez and Teodoro. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that the petitioners failed to perfect their appeal.

7. Appeal to the Supreme Court:

   • The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in its decision.

Issue:

1. Whether the petitioners' appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.
2. Whether the petitioners' motion for relief was properly filed and should have been granted.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for certiorari.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that:

1. The petitioners failed to perfect their appeal within the reglementary period, as the record on appeal was filed out of time.
2. The motion for relief filed by the petitioners was improperly directed at setting aside the judgment of September 3, 1949, rather than addressing the order dismissing the appeal.
3. The petitioners' defense of force majeure was not substantiated, and the Court of Appeals' factual findings on this matter were conclusive.

Ratio:

• (Unlock)