G.R. No. L-29986 - Ernesto Oppen, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Ernesto Oppen, Inc. (plaintiff-appellant) initiated a complaint for recovery of a sum of money against Luis Sia Realty Enterprise and Luis Sia Siong Peck (defendants-appellees) in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The defendants filed an answer with counterclaim, and the plaintiff subsequently filed a reply, joining the issues at hand.

A pre-trial was held, but due to the plaintiff's failure to appear at this stage, it was declared non-suited.
The defendants then presented their evidence ex-parte, leading the trial court to render a decision in their favor, awarding moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Both parties moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s decision, but their motions were denied.

The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s decision along with a motion for an extension of the period to file the record on appeal and the requisite appeal bond.
Within the extended period, the plaintiff filed both the record on appeal and the appeal bond.
The trial court, however, subsequently issued an order denying the motion for an extension, ruling that the record on appeal and appeal bond were filed one day late.

The plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration, attributing the one-day delay to the illness of its counsel’s filing clerk.
The trial court, upon review of this justification, reconsidered its initial denial and approved the appeal bond, also re-amending the record on appeal after holding a hearing.
After docketing the appeal in the Court of Appeals, the appellees moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond and record on appeal were not filed on time.
The Court of Appeals granted the motion to dismiss and later affirmed the dismissal on further reconsideration, prompting the petitioner’s present petition for review.

Whether the one-day delay in filing the motion for extension to submit the record on appeal and appeal bond is sufficient grounds to dismiss the appeal.
Whether the justification provided (illness of the filing clerk) constitutes a justifiable reason for the delayed filing.

Whether the trial court correctly exercised its judicial discretion in reconsidering its initial denial of the motion for extension after the justified delay was demonstrated.
Whether the error of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the appeal and interfering with the trial court's discretionary act warrants reversal.

Whether the principle of resolving cases on their merits (substantial justice) should prevail over the enforcement of a strict technical deadline in this instance.
Whether any party was prejudiced by the one-day delay, thereby justifying the leniency in appellate review.