G.R. No. 140630 - Yusuke Fukuzumi vs. Sanritsu Great International Corp.

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 258’s Order dated August 5, 1999.
The challenged Order denied Yusuke Fukuzumi’s petition for relief from the Order (dated June 2, 1999) which had denied his notice of appeal; thus, his appeal was dismissed.

On January 26, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs—Sanritsu Great International Corporation, Tetsuji Maruyama, Akira Kubota, and Yukio Matsuzaka—against defendant Yusuke Fukuzumi.
The decision ordered the defendant to pay:

PhP90,000.00 as a two-month rental deposit.
PhP112,500.00 for unused rental payments covering two-and-a-half months.
PhP16,500.00 for the cost of a pressure pump and an overhead tank.
PhP8,000.00 for hauling expenses.
PhP137,148.15 as actual damages for hotel bills incurred at Traders Hotel and Mount Sea Resort Hotel and Restaurant.
PhP50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
The costs of suit.

The defendant received his copy of the decision on February 9, 1999, and filed a motion for reconsideration on February 23, 1999.
The trial court denied the motion on April 27, 1999, with the defendant receiving a copy on May 5, 1999.
Instead of perfecting his appeal on May 6, 1999 within the reglementary period, the defendant filed his notice of appeal on May 7, 1999—one day beyond the prescribed period.
Consequently, on June 2, 1999, the trial court issued an Order denying his notice of appeal; the defendant received this Order on June 10, 1999.

On June 22, 1999, the defendant (now petitioning) filed a Verified Petition for Relief from the Order denying his notice of appeal.
In his petition, he alleged that:

His counsel suffered high blood pressure on May 6, 1999, which prevented the timely filing of the notice of appeal.
A Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Ma. Lakambini Cruz-Crespo dated June 18, 1999 was submitted as evidence of the counsel’s condition, indicating essential (moderate) hypertension with an advised rest period of three days.

The trial court denied the petition on August 5, 1999, ruling that Section 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court was not applicable.
The defendant’s subsequent motion for reconsideration of the denial, dated October 22, 1999, was also denied.

The petitioner argued that his petition for relief should be considered under Section 2, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
He maintained that his counsel’s high blood pressure constituted an excusable negligence that prevented the timely filing of the notice of appeal.

They asserted that Rule 38, Section 2 applies only when a party – not his counsel – is negligent.
They contended that the petitioner had other available remedies and that the alleged health condition of counsel was a mere afterthought masking collective negligence.

Whether the petitioner's reliance on the alleged high blood pressure of his counsel constitutes excusable negligence justifying the one-day delay in filing the notice of appeal.
Whether Section 2, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is applicable in a situation whereby the delay in filing the notice of appeal is attributable to the negligence of both the party and his counsel.
Whether the trial court properly denied both the petition for relief from the denial of the appeal and the subsequent motion for reconsideration based on the applicable rules governing the timeliness and perfection of an appeal.