Case Digest (G.R. No. 73558)
Facts:
Municipality of Obando, Province of Bulacan and Romualdo C. Sunga v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Hon. Antonia Corpus Macandog, the City Sheriff of Caloocan City and Ernesto R. Cruz (doing business as "EMD Trading Center"), G.R. No. 73558, September 29, 1987, Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.In a complaint for sum of money filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, Branch CXX, judgment was rendered in favor of private respondent Ernesto R. Cruz ordering the Municipality of Obando to pay P71,147.15 plus moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs. The Municipality acknowledged receipt of the copy of the decision on June 13, 1985 and calculated its last day to file a notice of appeal as June 28, 1985. No motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed.
The petitioners allege they prepared a notice of appeal on June 27, 1985 and intended to file by registered mail on June 28, 1985, but that typhoon “Daling” caused the closure of public offices in Bulacan and adjoining areas on June 28 and produced continuing heavy rains and floods through June 30, 1985, preventing timely filing; the notice was eventually mailed on July 3, 1985. On motion of the private respondent the RTC, by order dated July 22, 1985, dismissed the attempted appeal as untimely and granted the motion for execution.
The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction before the former Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The IAC, on December 23, 1985, dismissed the petition, holding that appeal is a purely statutory remedy and perfection within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional; citing Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Maximo N. Japzon and the rule that the fifteen-day period for appeal or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended.
From that adverse IAC decision the petitioners brou...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the court should approve a notice of appeal filed out of time because the filing was prevented by a fortuitous event (typhoo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)