FJR GARMENTS INDUSTRIES, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND KAPISANANG MAGKAKAPIT-BAHAY DAMAYAN AT ABULUYAN, INC., RESPONDENT.

FJR Garments Industries versus Court of Appeals and Kapisanang Magkakapit-bahay Damayan at Abuluyan

The Case

This is a petition brought by FJR Garments Industries, the owner and lessor of two lots in Pasay City, against the Court of Appeals and its lessee, Kapisanang Magkakapit-bahay Damayan at Abuluyan, Incorporated. The owner had won an ejectment judgment below, and the question that reaches the Supreme Court is procedural but decisive: may a losing lessee be allowed to pay the docket fee and file its appeal bond after the fifteen-day period for perfecting an appeal has already lapsed? The case matters because it draws a hard line between a liberal reading of the Rules of Court and the strict, mandatory compliance required for the timely perfection of appeals.

Procedural History

The city court of Pasay City rendered judgment in favor of the owner, ordering the lessee to vacate the lots, to restore possession to the owner, and to pay back rentals and attorney's fees. The decision was served on the lessee, which filed a notice of appeal within the period but did not pay the docket fee, the appeal bond, or the supersedeas bond. The city court later disapproved the appeal. Without first moving for reconsideration, the lessee filed a petition for relief from judgment in the Court of First Instance of Pasay City, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the failure to appeal was due to inexcusable neglect. The lessee then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court and directed the city court to allow the lessee to perfect its appeal within ten days from the finality of its judgment. The owner came to the Supreme Court by petition for review, and the Court reversed the Court of Appeals.

Facts

On March 11, 1978, the city court of Pasay City rendered a decision ordering Kapisanang Magkakapit-bahay Damayan at Abuluyan, Incorporated to vacate the lots at the corner of Leveriza Street and Buendia Avenue in Pasay City, to restore FJR Garments Industries to possession, and to pay accumulated back rentals as of November 1977 in the amount of 87,110.55 pesos, monthly rental of 2,250 pesos from December 1977 until the lots are vacated, and 5,000 pesos as attorney's fees.

That decision was served on the lessee on July 6, 1978. Nine days later, on July 15, 1978, the lessee filed a notice of appeal, but it did not pay the docket fee of 20 pesos, the appeal bond of 50 pesos, or post the supersedeas bond of 107,860 pesos, as the Rules of Court required. On August 3, 1978, twenty-eight days after service of the decision, the city court disapproved the appeal.

Without filing any motion for reconsideration, the lessee filed the next day in the Court of First Instance of Pasay City a petition for relief from judgment, grounded on mistake and excusable negligence — the alleged misinterpretation by a member of the association, who paid only postage stamps for the notice mailed to adverse counsel instead of the docket fee and appeal bond. The lower court dismissed the petition, finding the failure to appeal due to inexcusable neglect. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the owner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the lessee should be allowed to pay the docket fee and file an appeal bond after the fifteen-day period for perfecting an appeal had expired.
• Whether or not the lessee is entitled to relief from judgment on the ground of mistake and excusable negligence.

Applicable Provisions

The Court refers to the Rules of Court governing appeals from the city court, requiring the docket fee, appeal bond, and supersedeas bond, as follows:

Sections 2 and 3, Rule 40 in relation to section 8, Rule 70 and section 5(12), Rule 141, Rules of Court.

These provisions fix what the appellant must do, and pay, to perfect an appeal, and the lessee failed to comply with them within the reglementary period.

On the liberal interpretation of the Rules, the Court cites the material data rule found in section 6 of Rule 41, which provides:

Section 6 of Rule 41.

The Court clarifies that the liberality spoken of attaches to this material data rule, which is not involved in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the lessee's failure to perfect its appeal was not a pardonable oversight. During the fifteen-day period the lessee did not even attempt to pay the docket fee and appeal bond. The fact that the city court, even before the expiration of that period, declared the appeal moot and academic is of no moment, since the lessee still failed to comply within the period.

On the second issue, the Court held that the lessee is not entitled to relief from judgment, because there was no fraud or excusable neglect that prevented it from seasonably appealing. Moreover, its petition had no affidavit of merits. The Court added that the failure to file a supersedeas bond rendered the city court's judgment immediately executory.

The Court stressed that rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business, and that strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative.

Doctrine

Rules of court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative. The liberal interpretation of the Rules of Court in the matter of appeals refers to the material data rule found in section 6 of Rule 41, and does not excuse the failure to pay the docket fee and file the appeal and supersedeas bonds within the fifteen-day period. Relief from judgment requires fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and a petition therefor must be supported by an affidavit of merits.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, with costs against the respondent lessee.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: rules fixing the time to do acts or take proceedings are mandatory and imperative, and strict compliance is required. Examiners use this case to test the limits of liberal construction of the Rules of Court and the requisites for relief from judgment.