G.R. No. L-14018 - AUGUST 1959 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-14018August 31, 1959 Flora L. Capinpin, et al. vs. Bonifacio Ysip, et al. G.R. No. L-13032August 31, 1959 Philippine American Drug Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-12494August 31, 1959 Kiat Chun Tan vs. Republic G.R. No. L-12245August 31, 1959 Felicidad Francisco vs. Carmelino dela Serna, et al. G.R. No. L-12032August 31, 1959 City of Baguio vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority G.R. No. L-11872 and L-14922August 31, 1959 Franco J. Altomonte vs. Philippine-American Drug Company, et al. G.R. No. L-13058August 28, 1959 Philippine National Bank vs. Ramon Ereneta, et al. G.R. No. L-12779August 28, 1959 Paula Aquino Policarpio vs. Philippine Veterans Board G.R. No. L-12541August 28, 1959 Rosario U. Yulo vs. Yang Chiao Seng G.R. No. L-12024August 28, 1959 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Philippines International Fair, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-12019-20August 28, 1959 Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. Ramon J. Guico, etc. G.R. No. L-12017August 28, 1959 Jose L. Madamba vs. Salvador Araneta, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-11366-67August 28, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Ancheta, et al. G.R. No. L-10851August 28, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Sergio Dagatan, et al. G.R. No. L-13291August 27, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Hernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-9732August 27, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Cipriano Macabenta, et al. G.R. No. L-14091August 25, 1959 Amadeo Sapul vs. Esteban S. Silva, et al. G.R. No. L-12588August 25, 1959 Eligio Llanera vs. Ana Lopos, et al. G.R. No. L-12663August 21, 1959 Eulogio Cayco, et al. vs. Ursula Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-12178August 21, 1959 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. J.N. Sweeney, et al. G.R. No. L-10029August 21, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Florencio Bautista, et al. G.R. No. L-11378August 20, 1959 In re: Jose Yusay Jose Yusay vs. Lilia Yusay Gonzales G.R. No. L-13833-34August 13, 1959 Jose de la Paz vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-13113August 13, 1959 Blas Elnar vs. Macario P. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-13954August 12, 1959 Genaro Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al. A.C. No. L-350August 7, 1959 in re: Dalmacio de los Angeles The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Flora L. Capinpin, et al. vs. Bonifacio Ysip, et al. Philippine American Drug Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Kiat Chun Tan vs. Republic Felicidad Francisco vs. Carmelino dela Serna, et al. City of Baguio vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority Franco J. Altomonte vs. Philippine-American Drug Company, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Ramon Ereneta, et al. Paula Aquino Policarpio vs. Philippine Veterans Board Rosario U. Yulo vs. Yang Chiao Seng Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Philippines International Fair, Inc., et al. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. Ramon J. Guico, etc. Jose L. Madamba vs. Salvador Araneta, etc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Ancheta, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Sergio Dagatan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Hernandez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Cipriano Macabenta, et al. Amadeo Sapul vs. Esteban S. Silva, et al. Eligio Llanera vs. Ana Lopos, et al. Eulogio Cayco, et al. vs. Ursula Cruz, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. J.N. Sweeney, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Florencio Bautista, et al. In re: Jose Yusay Jose Yusay vs. Lilia Yusay Gonzales Jose de la Paz vs. Public Service Commission, et al. Blas Elnar vs. Macario P. Santos, et al. Genaro Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al. in re: Dalmacio de los Angeles The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-14018 August 31, 1959
FLORA L. CAPINPIN and MATEO CAPINPIN, JR.,petitioners,
vs.
HON. BONIFACIO YSIP, as presiding Judge of Branch XII of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO.,respondents.
Alfredo B. Concepcion, Luis A. Cuevas and Roger E. Villareal for petitioners.
Ross, Selph, Carrascoso and Janda for respondents.
ENDENCIA,J.:
This is a petition forcertiorariandmandamusto set aside two orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 32277, entitled Manila Trading & Supply Co. vs. Flora Capinpin, et al., and to give due course to the appeal taken by defendants therein.
It appears that the decision rendered against the defendants in that case, now petitioners, was served upon them on February 24, 1958. Twenty-one days thereafter, or on March 17, 1958, they filed their notice of appeal bond. On March 26th, that it to say, on the 30th day counted from February 24th when petitioners were served copy of the decision, their counsel filed an urgent ex parte motion asking for an extension of ten days within which to file the appeal bond, alleging that he could not contact his clients who were in the province. Meantime, the appeal bond was filed on March 28th. On March 31st, the court without resolving the ex-parte motion for extension, entered an order declaring the decision final and executory for the reason that the ex-parte motion and the appeal bond were filed a beyond the legal period. On April 14th, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the court on May 28th. Hence this petition.
The only question involved herein is whether the appeal has been perfected in due time. It is well settled that in order to perfect an appeal from the Court of First Instance, appellant should serve upon the adverse party and file with the court a notice of appeal, an appeal bond and a record on appeal, within 30 days from notice of order or judgment; so that failure of appellant to meet these three requirements would render his contemplated appeal unperfected and the decision becoming thereby final and executory. In this particular case, it is evident that petitioners did not comply with Sec. 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court for having filed the appeal bond two days beyond the prescribed period. Petitioners however claim that, having in due time presented an ex-parte motion for extension to file the appeal bond, as they in fact filed two days after the 30-day period, their appeal should be given due course, at least on equitable ground. This contention, however, cannot be seriously entertained as (1) the filing of the motion for extension did not suspend the running of such period; (2) the same was not supported by any affidavit of merit and no copy thereof was served upon respondent company, for which reason, under Secs. 4 and 6 of Rule 26, the court could not have legally entertained it before the expiration of the 30-day period for perfecting an appeal.
Wherefore, the petition is hereby denied with costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Barrera, JJ.,concur.