MIDLAND INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, & SISENANDO VILLAREAL, RESPONDENTS.

Midland Insurance versus Intermediate Appellate Court

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Midland Insurance Corporation against the Intermediate Appellate Court and Sisenando Villareal. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to nullify the appellate court's order dismissing its appeal from a judgment of the Insurance Commission. The case matters because it fixes the reglementary period for appealing from quasi-judicial bodies such as the Insurance Commission, and it clarifies that the fifteen-day uniform appeal period under the Judiciary Reorganization Act does not repeal the special ten-day allowance under Republic Act Number 5434 when a motion for reconsideration is filed.

Procedural History

The Insurance Commission rendered judgment in favor of Sisenando Villareal and against Midland Insurance Corporation. Midland filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Commission denied. Midland then filed its notice of appeal with the Insurance Commission, and the appeal was docketed in the Intermediate Appellate Court. The appellate court initially accepted the appeal and advised counsel to file the appellant's brief. Villareal later moved to dismiss on the ground that the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. Over Midland's opposition, the Intermediate Appellate Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the appeal was belatedly made. Midland then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

On October 1, 1984, the Insurance Commission rendered a judgment in favor of Sisenando Villareal and against Midland Insurance Corporation. Midland received a copy of the decision on October 5, 1984, and on October 17, 1984 it filed a motion for reconsideration. The Commission denied that motion in an order dated October 26, 1984, and Midland received notice of the denial on October 30, 1984.

On November 7, 1984, Midland filed with the Insurance Commission its notice of appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court. The appeal was docketed, and the appellate court advised Midland's counsel to file the appellant's brief.

On March 1, 1985, Villareal filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, claiming that Midland failed to perfect its appeal within the reglementary period. On August 14, 1985, the Intermediate Appellate Court granted the motion, computing the elapsed period from Midland's receipt of the Commission's decision to the filing of the notice of appeal, and concluding that the appeal was late.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal of Midland Insurance Corporation to the Intermediate Appellate Court was filed within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not Section 2 of Republic Act Number 5434, granting ten days from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration within which to appeal, applies to appeals from quasi-judicial bodies such as the Insurance Commission.
• Whether or not the fifteen-day appeal period under the Judiciary Reorganization Act repealed or modified the appeal period under Republic Act Number 5434.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 22(c) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, relative to the implementation of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981, provides:

Paragraph 22(c). Appeals from Quasi-Judicial Bodies. - The appeals to the Intermediate Appellate Court from quasi-judicial bodies shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Republic Act No. 5434 insofar as the same is not inconsistent with the provisions of B.P. Blg. 129.

This provision directs that appeals from quasi-judicial bodies remain governed by Republic Act Number 5434.

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 5434 provides:

Sec. 2. Appeals to the Court of Appeals shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the ruling, award, order, decision or judgment or from the date of its last publication if required by law for its effectivity or in case a motion for reconsideration is filed within that period of fifteen (15) days, then within ten (10) days from Notice or publication, when required by law, of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. No more than one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed by any party. xxx.

This is the pivotal provision the Court applied in holding that Midland's appeal was timely.

Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides:

Appeals. - The period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment, or decision appealed from: Provided, however, That in habeas corpus cases, the period for appeal shall be forty-eight (48) hours from the notice of the judgment appeal from.

The Court held that this uniform fifteen-day period for courts does not conflict with the special rule for quasi-judicial bodies.

Section 416, paragraph 7 of the Insurance Code provides:

xxx any party may appeal from a final order, ruling or decision of the Commissioner by filing with the Commissioner within thirty (30) days from receipt of copy of such order, ruling or decision a notice of appeal xxx

The Court used this thirty-day period as an alternative measure confirming that the appeal was timely.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Midland's appeal was timely filed. Midland received notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration on October 30, 1984, and it had ten days from that date, or until November 9, 1984, within which to appeal. Its notice of appeal filed on November 7, 1984 was well within that period.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Insurance Commission performs quasi-judicial functions, and that appeals from it are governed by Republic Act Number 5434. The Court stressed that the ten-day allowance does not extend the appeal period but merely furnishes an automatic ten-day allowance when a motion for reconsideration is interposed within the appeal period. The Court said:

It should be stressed that the provision in Section 2 of R.A. No. 5434 which allows an additional ten (10) days from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration does not extend the period for appeal but merely furnishes an automatic ten-day allowance in the event that a motion for reconsideration is interposed within the appeal period.

On the third issue, the Court held that there is no inconsistency between Section 2 of Republic Act Number 5434 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The Interim Rules expressly refer to Section 2 of Republic Act Number 5434, so Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 may not be said to have repealed it. The Court also noted that even under the thirty-day period of the Insurance Code, the appeal was timely, since the motion for reconsideration suspended the running of that period and Midland still had nineteen days remaining when it filed its notice of appeal.

Doctrine

Appeals to the Intermediate Appellate Court from quasi-judicial bodies such as the Insurance Commission are governed by Republic Act Number 5434, insofar as it is not inconsistent with Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Under Section 2 of that law, an appellant has fifteen days from notice of the ruling within which to appeal, and if a motion for reconsideration is filed within that fifteen-day period, the appellant has ten days from notice of the denial of the motion within which to appeal. This ten-day allowance does not extend the appeal period; it is an automatic allowance that operates only when a motion for reconsideration is filed during the fifteen-day period. The uniform fifteen-day period under Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 does not repeal or modify this special rule for quasi-judicial bodies.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Intermediate Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and directed that court to give due course to Midland's appeal, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the ten-day period from denial of a motion for reconsideration under Republic Act Number 5434 is not an extension of the appeal period but an automatic allowance available only when the motion is filed within the fifteen-day appeal period. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate knows that appeals from quasi-judicial bodies like the Insurance Commission follow Republic Act Number 5434 rather than the uniform fifteen-day period under the Judiciary Reorganization Act.