ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, LUIS SIA REALTY ENTERPRISE AND LUIS SIA SIONG PECK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

This is a petition for review of the resolutions of the former Court of
Appeals in C.A. – G.R. No. 41119-R (Ernesto Oppen, Inc. vs. Luis Sia
Realty Enterprise and Luis Sia Siong Peck) dismissing petitioner’s
appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The case originated from a complaint for recovery of a sum of money
filed by Ernesto Oppen, Inc. in the Court of First Instance of Manila
against Luis Sia Realty Enterprise and Luis Sia Siong Peck. After the
issues had been joined by the filing of an answer with counterclaim by
the defendants and the reply thereto by the plaintiff, pre-trial was
held. For failure to appear at the pre-trial, the plaintiff was
declared non-suited.

After presentation of evidence ex-parte by the defendants, the trial
court rendered a decision awarding moral damages, attorney’s fees and
costs to the defendants. Both parties moved for reconsideration of the
decision; but the same was denied.

The plaintiff then filed its notice of appeal from the decision
simultaneously with a motion for extension of the period within which to
file the record on appeal and appeal bond. Within the extension
sought, plaintiff filed the record on appeal and appeal bond.
Thereafter, the trial court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion
for extension and accordingly disapproved the record on appeal and
appeal bond for having been filed out of time. The ground for the
denial of the motion for extension was, it was filed one day late.
Subsequently, however, upon plaintiff’s filing a motion for
reconsideration showing that the late filing of the motion for extension
was caused by the illness of its counsel’s filing clerk, the trial
court reconsidered its denial of the motion for extension and, in due
course, approved the appeal bond and re-amended record on appeal after
hearing.

After the appeal had been docketed in the Court of Appeals, the
appellees (respondents) moved to dismiss the appeal, invoking once more
appellant’s (petitioner) failure to file the appeal bond and record on
appeal on time. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and affirmed it
on motion for reconsideration, from which the present petition has been
taken by the petitioner.

There is no question that petitioner incurred delay in filing the motion
for extension of time in the lower court. But the delay was only for
one day and there was a justifiable reason, duly established, for it.
Moreover, no one was prejudiced by the delay; and when the lower court
was called upon to act on the motion, the record on appeal and appeal
bond had already been filed. The lower court, therefore, acted
correctly in reconsidering its denial of the motion for extension of
time within which to file the record on appeal and appeal bond, so as to
give due course to petitioner’s appeal. This action was in line with
the oft-stated exhortation of this Court that judges should as much as
possible lean in favor of deciding cases on the basis of merits in the
interest of substantial justice rather than through the invocation of
technicalities.

Conversely, the defunct Court of Appeals erred when it interfered with
the proper exercise of judicial discretion by the trial court in giving
due course to the appeal.

WHEREFORE, the assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing
the appeal in C.A. – G.R. No. 41119-R (Ernesto Oppen, Inc.,
plaintiff-appellant, vs. Luis Sia Siong Peck, defendants-appellees) are
hereby set aside.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., (Chairman), no part.