G.R. No. 183239 - De Leon vs. Hercules Agro Industrial Corp.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183239)

Key Dates and Trial Court Disposition

RTC Decision promulgated September 23, 2005 (per Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali). Dispositive relief against Rumi Rungis: award of $142,080 (converted at P26.41/USD) plus legal interest; attorney’s fees of P100,000; customs duties and taxes of P477,622; and P6,358.40 for milk analysis. Claims against Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and Jesus Chua were dismissed for lack of evidence; their counterclaims likewise dismissed.

Post-Judgment Filings at the RTC

Petitioner received the RTC decision on October 4, 2005. He attempted on October 19, 2005 to secure an extension to October 29, 2005 to file a motion for partial reconsideration by filing a Motion for Time. The RTC denied this motion on October 27, 2005 based on the non-extendible nature of the period to file a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on October 24, 2005 which the RTC later denied (petitioner’s partial reconsideration was denied in an Order dated June 1, 2006 for failure to appear). Rumi Rungis Milk filed a motion for reconsideration on November 2, 2005, which was denied by the RTC on January 9, 2006.

Notices of Appeal, Execution Motions, and Preliminary Proceedings

Petitioner moved for partial execution on February 13, 2006; the RTC denied execution because the decision was not yet final and executory as to Rumi Rungis due to its timely notice of appeal. Petitioner filed a Notice of Partial Appeal on February 13, 2006 (referenced as February 10 in some filings) but the RTC issued an Order on February 15, 2006 that the notice could not be given due course because it had been filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration and a notice of appeal of the RTC’s June 1, 2006 Order; petitioner thereafter received a CA notice to file appellant’s brief and filed one on December 28, 2006.

Court of Appeals Resolutions

The CA issued a Resolution dated January 7, 2008 ordering petitioner’s appellant’s brief stricken from the records and dismissing the appeal because the appeal was filed out of time and had been denied due course by the RTC. The CA also addressed ancillary relief requests: petitioner’s claim for refund of overpaid appeal and docket fees was to be referred through proper administrative channels (Chief Justice via Court Administrator pursuant to A.M. No. 05-9-256-MeTC), and Hercules’ motion to lift the amended order of attachment had to be filed before the trial court (leave to file denied). The CA simultaneously expunged Rumi Rungis Milk’s appellant’s brief in light of its having been denied an extension to file and its appeal dismissed by a March 15, 2007 Resolution. Motions for reconsideration of the CA’s January 7, 2008 Resolution were denied in the CA’s June 2, 2008 Resolution.

Issue before the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering petitioner’s appellant’s brief stricken from the records and dismissing his appeal when petitioner had attempted to obtain an extension to file a motion for reconsideration and later filed notices of appeal after various RTC orders resolving motions for reconsideration.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Non-extendibility of Motion for Reconsideration

The Court reaffirmed the rule that the period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. The petitioner received the RTC decision on October 4, 2005 and had until October 19, 2005 to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner’s Motion for Time, seeking ten additional days to October 29, 2005, was impermissible because Section 2, Rule 40 and Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit motions for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration in municipal and regional trial courts (with such extensions being permissible only at the Supreme Court as last resort). The Court relied on controlling precedent (Habaluyas Enterprises Inc. v. Japson and Rolloque v. Court of Appeals) to hold that a motion for extension does not toll the statutory period; consequently petitioner lost his right to appeal when he failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration or appeal by October 19, 2005.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Perfection of Appeal is Jurisdictional and Mandatory

The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is statutory and must be strictly complied with. The requirements and timelines for perfecting an appeal are jurisdictional; failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders a judgment final and executory as to the non-appealing party. The CA correctly concluded that petitioner, having failed to perfect his appeal in due time, could not obtain relief from the appellate court and that his appellant’s brief properly was stricken.

Petitioner's Counterarguments and the Court’s Response

Petitioner argued that the RTC’s later Order denying Rumi Rungis Milk’s motion for reconsideration (January 9, 2006) permitted him to file a timely partial appeal from that Order. The Court rejected this, emphasizing that petitioner had already lost the right to appeal the initial September 23, 2005 decision by failing to comply with the reglementary period in October 2005; a subsequent RTC order denying another party’s motion

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 183239)

Parties

Petitioner: Gregorio De Leon, doing business as G.D.L. Marketing, plaintiff below, appellant in the Court of Appeals, petitioner in this petition for review on certiorari.
Respondents: Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation (represented by Jesus Chua) and Rumi Rungis Milk (defendants below, respondents in appellate proceedings).
Trial Court: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 20.
Appellate Court: Court of Appeals (CA), case CA-G.R. CV No. 87212.
Supreme Court Justices involved: Opinion by Justice Peralta; concurring Justices Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., and Leonen. Additional designations: Velasco, Jr. designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza; Villarama, Jr. designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691.

Nature of the Action and Reliefs Sought

Original action filed in RTC: an action for breach of contract with damages and a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation (represented by Jesus Chua) and Rumi Rungis Milk.
Case docketed in the RTC as Civil Case No. 98-89938 and raffled to Branch 20.
Petitioner sought damages and other monetary reliefs as part of the breach of contract claim; respondents asserted counterclaims (later dismissed for lack of evidence).

RTC Decision (September 23, 2005) — Dispositive Portion

RTC rendered judgment finding defendant Rumi Rungis liable to the plaintiff as follows:
- $142,080 at the conversion rate of P26.41 to a dollar, plus legal interest;
- P100,000.00 in attorney’s fees;
- P477,622.00 for customs duties and taxes;
- P6,358.40 representing payment for the analysis of the delivered milk and the milk sample.
The case against defendants Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and Jesus Chua was dismissed for want of evidence.
Counterclaims of Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and Jesus Chua were dismissed for lack of concrete evidence.

Post-Decision Proceedings in the RTC — Petitioner’s and Respondents’ Motions

Petitioner received the RTC Decision on October 4, 2005 and had until October 19, 2005 to file an appeal or motion for reconsideration.
October 19, 2005: Petitioner filed a Motion for Time, requesting an additional 10 days (until October 29, 2005) to file a motion for partial reconsideration.
October 24, 2005: Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the September 23, 2005 decision.
October 27, 2005: RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Time, citing the non-extendible period for filing a motion for reconsideration.
November 2, 2005: Respondent Rumi Rungis Milk filed its Motion for Reconsideration of the September 23, 2005 decision and sought dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines.
January 9, 2006: RTC denied Rumi Rungis Milk’s motion for reconsideration.
February 13, 2006: Petitioner filed a Notice of Partial Appeal from the January 9, 2006 Order.
February 15, 2006: RTC issued an Order stating petitioner’s Notice of Partial Appeal could not be given due course as it had been filed beyond the reglementary period to appeal.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the February 15, 2006 Order, a Supplement, and a Reply to respondent’s comment.
February 13, 2006 (parallel filing): Petitioner moved for partial execution of the RTC Decision dated September 23, 2005; the RTC denied this motion because the case against Rumi Rungis Milk was not yet final and executory due to timely filing of Rumi Rungis Milk’s notice of appeal.
June 1, 2006: Petitioner’s partial reconsideration was denied for failure of petitioner or counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal of the June 1, 2006 Order.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Resolutions

November 16, 2006: Petitioner received a notice from the CA requiring him to file appellant’s brief; petitioner filed appellant’s brief on December 28, 2006.
Respondent Rumi Rungis Milk filed a motion for extension of time to file its appellant’s brief; the CA denied it in a Resolution dated March 15, 2007.
Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation filed a Motion to strike out or dismiss petitioner’s appeal and a motion for leave of court to lift the amended order of attachment and release the properties in custodia legis.
Petitioner filed an opposition to Hercules’ motion and a motion for refund of overpayment of fees.
January 7, 2008: CA issued a Resolution ordering petitioner’s appellant’s brief stricken off the records and dismissing the appeal, finding:
- The appeal could not be legally entertained because it was filed out of time and had been denied due course by the RTC.
- Petitioner’s claim for refund of overpayment of appeal and docket fees should be referred to the Chief Justice through the Court Administrator pursuant to A.M. No. 05-9-256-MeTC (Oct. 12, 2005).
- Hercules’ motion to lift the amended order of attachment should be filed before the trial court; leave of court to file it in the CA was denied.
- The CA also ordered expunged from the records the Appellant’s Brief dated March 5, 2007 filed by respondent Rumi Rungis Milk, in light of the March 15, 2007 Resolution denying its motion for extension and dismissing its appeal.
Both petitioner a