Scribd
Upload
56 views

Case #11

The Court held that the CA did not err in ordering the petitioner's appellant's brief be stricken from the records. The petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which is prohibited based on jurisprudence. The period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible, so the petitioner lost their right to appeal when they failed to file it on time. As the petitioner did not perfect their appeal within the required period, the trial court's decision became final. The rules on procedure must be strictly followed to avoid delays.

Uploaded by

Edgar Calzita Alota
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views

Case #11

The Court held that the CA did not err in ordering the petitioner's appellant's brief be stricken from the records. The petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which is prohibited based on jurisprudence. The period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible, so the petitioner lost their right to appeal when they failed to file it on time. As the petitioner did not perfect their appeal within the required period, the trial court's decision became final. The rules on procedure must be strictly followed to avoid delays.

Uploaded by

Edgar Calzita Alota
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MARIA AGATHA F DIONGON

LLB – 3
ELECTIVE/ PRACTICUM 1
CASE#11

DE LEON vs. HERCULES AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION


G.R. No. 183239 June 2, 2014

FACTS:

Petitioner (De Leon) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila an action for breach of
contract with damages and a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against respondent (Hercules
Agro Industrial Corporation and Rumi Rungis Milk). The case against defendants was dismissed.
Petitioner, through counsel filed a Motion for Time, asking for an additional period of ten (10) days to
file a motion for reconsideration. The RTC denied the Motion for Time, as the period for filing a motion
for reconsideration is non-extendible. Respondent filed its Motion for Reconsideration of the decision
and to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant foreign corporation not doing
business in the Philippines. The RTC issued its Order denying respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner moved for partial Execution of the RTC Decision. The RTC denied the motion since the case
against respondent was not yet final and executory as its notice of appeal had been timely filed.
Respondent filed a Motion to strike out or dismiss petitioner’s appeal and motion to leave of court to lift
the amended order of attachment and release the properties in custodial egis. The CA found the appeal
could not be legally entertained, since it was filed out of time and denied due course by the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred when it ordered petitioner’s appellant’s brief filed with it be
stricken off the records.

HELD:

In Habaluyas Enterprises Inc. V. Japson: Beginning one month after the promulgation of this
Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for
new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional
Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court. Such motion may be filed only in cases pending with
the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the
extension requested. In Rolloque v. Court of Appeals, we restated the rule, thus: The filing by petitioners
of a motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration did not toll the fifteen-day period
before a judgment becomes final and executory. It has, likewise, been explicitly stated in Section 2, Rule
40 and Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that in appeals from Municipal Trial Courts
or Regional Trial Courts, no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shall be
allowed. As the period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible, petitioner’s motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period to appeal;
thus, petitioner has already lost his right to appeal the September 23, 2005 decision. As such, the RTC
decision became final as to petitioner when no appeal was perfected after the lapse of the prescribed
period. Doctrinally-entrenched is that the right to appeal is a statutory tight and one who seeks to avail
that right must comply with the statute or rules. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the
reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless delays. Moreover, the perfection of appeal in the manner and within the
period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdiction as well, hence, failure to perfect the same
renders the judgment final and executory. The CA correctly ordered that petitioner’s appellant’s brief be
stricken off the records. As the CA said, the parties who have not appealed in due time cannot legally ask
for the modification of the judgment or obtain affirmative relief from the appellate court. A party who
fails to question an adverse decision by not filing the proper remedy within the period prescribed by law
loses his right to do so. As petitioner failed to perfect his appeal within the period for doing so, the
September 23, 2005 decision has become final as against him. The rule is clear that no modification of
judgment could be granted to a party who did not appeal. It is enshrined as one of the basic principles in
our rules of procedure., specifically to avoid ambiguity in the presentation of issues, facilitate the setting
forth of arguments by the parties, and aid the court in making its determinations. It is not installed in the
rules merely to make litigations laborious and tedious for the parties. It is there for a reason. Petitioner’s
plea that the rules be not strictly applied so that the ends of justice will be served is not meritorious. We
found that petitioner had not shown any satisfactory reason which would merit the relaxation of the
rules. Petitioner moved for motion of time to file his motion for partial reconsideration alleging heavy
volume of work and the need to attend to other urgent matters in other

You might also like