Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24934 September 28, 1968
J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, defendant,
CORNELIO S. RUPERTO, respondent-appellant.
Areneta, Mendoza & Papa for plaintiff-appellee.
Cornelio S. Ruperto for and in his own behalf.
R E S O L U T I O N
FERNANDO, J.:
Respondent-appellant, counsel of defendant Raymundo Familara before the lower court, 1 was found guilty by the then Judge Hermogenes Caluag of contempt of court "for hurling false and malicious charges" against it in an order dated October 16, 1964. The punishment imposed is a fine of P500.00. 2 On November 12, 1964, respondent Ruperto filed a motion for reconsideration of the above order holding him liable for contempt. 3 Such motion for reconsideration was denied by the lower court in an order of December 7, 1964, as a result of which he filed a notice of appeal to this Court on December 15, 1964. 4 In an order of January 27, 1965, the lower court denied the appeal for having been filed outside the reglementary period. 5 There was a motion for the reconsideration of the above order under date of March 22, 1965, 6 but the new presiding Judge, the Honorable Placido C. Ramos, denied such motion on the ground that the court was without power "to set aside the order of October 16, 1964, because of its finality, ..." 7 From such order of denial, a notice of appeal to this Court was filed on April 28, 1965. 8
As early as August 25, 1965, a motion to dismiss appeal was filed by petitioner-appellee J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. In such motion, it was recited that respondent-appellant Ruperto received the order of October 16, 1964 on October 26, 1964. It was not until November 12, 1964 that he filed a motion for its reconsideration. As noted, such motion was denied for lack of merit. 9 Then, as above noted, came respondent-appellant's notice of appeal which was denied in an order of January 27, 1965, wherein the lower court categorically stated that as he only had up to November 10, 1964, the copy of the order finding him guilty of contempt having been served on him on October 26, 1964, the appeal had to be denied as it was filed outside the reglementary period.
It would appear, therefore, that the procedural question raised by petitioner-appellee possesses merit. Section 10 of Rule 71 is categorical. Thus: "The judgment or order of a Court of First Instance made in a case of contempt punished after written charge and hearing may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, but execution of the judgment or order shall not be suspended until a bond is filed by the person in contempt, in an amount fixed by the Court of First Instance, conditioned that if the appeal be decided against him he will abide by and perform the judgment or order. The appeal may be taken as in criminal cases."
It is clear, therefore, that the appeal may be taken as in criminal cases necessarily resulting in the periods provided for such type of litigations being applicable. What is that period? The law is unmistakable. Thus: "An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be interrupted from the time a motion for new trial is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the defendant or his attorney." 10
The computation made by both the lower court and petitioner-appellee is correct. The order finding respondent-appellant guilty of contempt having been received on October 26, 1964, the 15-day period ended on November 10, 1964. It was not until November 12, 1964 that he filed a motion for reconsideration.1awphîl.nèt It was much too late. Due to failure to do so within the time allowed by law, the order finding him guilty of contempt assumed finality. It could no longer be the subject of an appeal.1awphîl.nèt
WHEREFORE, the appeal from the order of October 16, 1964, is dismissed. Without pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
Dizon and Zaldivar, JJ., are on leave.
Footnotes
1Civil Case No. Q-4970, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch IV.
2Record on Appeal, pp. 37-38.
3Ibid, pp. 38-43.
4Ibid, p. 44.
5Ibid, p. 49.
6Ibid, p. 56.
7Ibid, pp. 62-63.
8Ibid, pp. 63-64.
9Ibid, p. 44.
10Section 6, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
