EL HOGAR FILIPINO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ISIDORO DE SANTOS AND THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

On the 5th of this month, the appellee El Hogar
Filipino presented in these two cases a motion to dismiss the appeal
taken by John Gordon on the ground that when the latter, who is also a
receiver, asked the court of origin for the first time on July 26,
1937, that the exception, notice of appeal and bill of exceptions filed
by the Bank of the Philippine Islands be considered his, more than 30
days had already elapsed from June 16, 1937 the date on which John
Gordon was notified of the appealed order of May 27th of said year.

The appellant John Gordon opposed said motion, alleging1 that
prior to July 24, 1937, he had no attorney, the court having denied him
permission to obtain the services of one; that on July 24, 1937, El
Hogar Filipino, through its attorneys, agreed that the exception and
notice of appeal presented by the Bank of the Philippine Islands on the
17th of said month be considered as John Gordon’s exception and notice
of appeal, and that the bill of exceptions submitted by the Bank of the
Philippine Islands together with its motion for the approval thereof,
be also considered as his, on the ground that the questions raised by
the appeal of the Bank of the Philippine Islands affect the interests
of said John Gordon in the same manner as they affect the interests of
the Bank of the Philippine Islands, for which reason Gordon desired to
join the appeal.

Notwithstanding the alleged stipulation in question, El Hogar
Filipino, on July 30th, opposed the approval of the joint bill of
exceptions of the Bank of the Philippine Islands and John Gordon, as
far as John Gordon was concerned. The court having approved said bill
of exceptions by its order of August 10, 1937, amended by another one
dated the 12th of said month, El Hogar Filipino duly excepted to said
orders.

No reconsideration of the appealed order of May 27, 1937, was
sought, and no motion for a new trial was filed. John Gordon having
been notified thereof on June 16, 1937, the period of 30 days granted
by law for the appeal ran uninterruptedly and expired on July 17, 1937.
Therefore, when John Gordon, on the 26th of said month, asked the court
that the exception and notice of appeal filed by the Bank of the
Philippine Islands be considered as his, he had already lost his right
of appeal, and the bill of exceptions filed by the Bank of the
Philippine Islands, as far as he was concerned, was consequently filed
outside the statutory period of 30 days. Inasmuch as the appealed order
was already final and executory as to John Gordon, the court had no
jurisdiction to approve the bill of exceptions in question with respect
to him.

“This court has uniformly and steadfastly
maintained that the right of appeal from final judgment, orders, or
decrees, entered in ordinary actions, is lost and absolutely cut off,
unless the aggrieved party gives notice of his intention to appeal, as
required by the statute, as soon as practicable after the receipt of
notice of the rendition of such judgment, order, or decree.” (Gascon
Enriquez vs. Gibbs, 27 Phil., 110.)

“The appellant
must file his bill of exceptions within ten days from the time of
giving notice of his intention to do so, or within such additional time
as the trial court may, by express order, have allowed in response to a
petition for enlargement filed before the expiration of the statutory
period of ten days.

“Unless the appellant files his bill of
exceptions within the time prescribed by the statute, the judgment
becomes final * * *.” (Lim vs. Singian and Soler, 37 Phil., 817.)

The bill of exceptions must be filed within the period of 30 days
from the date on which a copy of the decision is received (sec. 26, Act
No. 2347; Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao vs. Director of Lands, 34 Phil., 623).

If the bill of exceptions is filed after the expiration of the 30
days computed in the manner above-stated, it is already too late and
the appeal, upon motion, should be dismissed (Estate of Cordoba and
Zarate vs. Alabado, 34 Phil., 920; Bermudez vs. Director of Lands, 36 Phil., 774; Layda vs. Legazpi, 39 Phil., 83; and Director of Lands vs. Municipality of Dingras, 40 Phil., 242).

The agreement entered into between John Gordon and the attorneys
for El Hograr Filipino can have no more scope nor other meaning than
mere conformity to Gordon’s filing with the court of a petition that
the notice of appeal and the bill of exceptions filed by the Bank of
the Philippine Islands be considered as his, and El Hogar Filipino
could not stipulate that said notice of appeal and bill of exceptions
be considered as having been filed by John Gordon within the statutory
period, because the parties absolutely cannot stipulate anything over
and against the statutory provisions governing judicial proceedings in
the courts; so much so that, if the appeal was interposed outside the
period of time granted by the Code of Civil Procedure, as it happened
in the present case, no stipulation between the parties would be valid,
for the purpose of considering the appeal as having been taken in due
time (Warner, Barnes & Co. vs. Jaucian, 13 Phil., 4; Yangco vs. Cruz Herrera and Wy Piaco, 11 Phil., 402; and Banco Espanol Filipino us. Donaldson Sim & Co., 5 Phil., 418).

The motion is granted; whereupon the appeal taken by John Gordon is dismissed, with costs to said John Gordon. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.