J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, DEFENDANT, CORNELIO S. RUPERTO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Respondent-appellant, counsel of defendant Raymundo
Familare 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 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 each 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 flied 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-appellants 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, 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.  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.

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., on
official leave.

^[1]
Civil Case No. Q-4970, Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Quezon City,
Branch IV.

^[2]
Record on Appeal, pp. 37-38.

^[3] Ibid,
pp. 38-43.

^[4] Ibid,
p. 44.

^[5] Ibid.
p. 49.

^[6] Ibid,
p. 56.

^[7] Ibid,
pp. 62-63.

^[8] Ibid,
pp. 63-64.

^[9] Ibid,
p. 44.

^[10] Section
6 Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.