5/12/2021 G.R. No.

L-5006

Today is Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5006 March 22, 1910

ALEJANDRA POLICARPIO, plaintiff-appellee,

C. de la Fuente, for appellants.

MAPA, J.:

In a civil action instituted in the court of the justice of the peace of Gapan, Province of Nueva Ecija, between Luis
Borja as plaintiff and Alejandro Policarpio as defendant, judgment was rendered in favor of the former, of which the
latter was notified on July 24, 1908. On the afternoon of Saturday, the 8th of the following month of August, the last
day of the fifteen specified by law as the period for the filing of an appeal, the said Alejandro Policarpio met the
justice of the peace in a private house, for the purpose, according to his own statement, of appealing, and the justice
told him to return the following Monday. Apparently the said justice believed in good faith that this day was within the
term prescribed by law for an appeal. Policarpio did not return on the following Monday, and on the petition of Luis
Borja the execution of the judgment was ordered on the following Tuesday.

In view of these facts, the aforesaid Alejandro Policarpio filed a suit in the Court of First Instance, praying for the
annulment of the said judgment of the justice of the peace on the ground that, owing to the latter's error in
computing the days comprised within the legal term for an appeal, he was prevented from filing in due time his
appeal against the judgment aforesaid.

The case having come to trial, after the evidence had adduced by both parties, the court rendered judgment
annulling that of the justice of the peace, by virtue of the provisions of section 148 of the Code of Procedure in Civil
Actions, concluding that the facts alleged in the complaint had been proved. "It is fact," the judgment states, "that the
plaintiff was prevented from filing his appeal within the term fixed by law, either through error on his part or through
error of the justice of the peace."

The important question to be decided in this case what the present plaintiff did on the 8th day of August with respect
to his appeal against the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace—whether he did or did not file the said
appeal in due form, for not having so done not having actually filed an appeal on that day, no importance could
attach to the fact that the justice of the peace told him to return on another day. On such a supposition, it could not
be said that he was prevented from appealing within the legal term for a cause or reason not imputable to himself.

The plaintiff says, in testifying with regard to what occurred on the said 8th of August, that he met the justice of the
peace and told him that he would file his appeal; that he carried with him his written appeal and showed it to the
justice, who did not receive it, telling him to return on Monday; and that he took no sureties with him, but that he did
carry money, although he made no intimatation of his wish to deliver the money to him to return on Monday. On the
other hand, the justice of the peace testified in his behalf that the plaintiff did not present to him, nor did he carry on
that occasion any document whatever; that neither did he present to him any bond, and that he merely said to him
that he wished to appeal, wherefore the justice told him to return on Monday. On this witness being asked why he
did not admit the appeal as it was the fifteenth day, he answered literally as follows: "It was because he brought
nothing with him on that occasion."

Section 16 of Act No. 1627, amendatory of section 76 of Act No. 190, provides as follows:

An appeal in civil causes shall be perfected by filing with the justice of the peace, within fifteen days after the
entry of the judgment complaint of, a notice that the party intends to appeal, and by depositing with such
justice the appellate court docket fee of sixteen pesos, and by filing with him a bond in the sum of fifty pesos,
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1910/mar1910/gr_l-5006_1910.html 1/2
5/12/2021 G.R. No. L-5006

executed to the adverse party by the appellant and by at least one sufficient surety, conditioned that the
appellant will pay all costs which Court of First Instance may award against him. In lieu of such a bond, the
appellant may file with the justice of a certificate of the proper official that the appellant has deposited twenty-
five pesos with the municipal treasurer (in Manila with the Collector of Internal Revenue) and that the said
sum is available for the satisfaction of any judgment for costs that may be rendered against appellant by the
appellate court in said cause.

Even admitting as true the whole testimony of the plaintiff, the conclusion is that all he did on that occasion
amounted to no more than a mere intention to appeal, which was not carried out, or at least was not effected in the
manner required by law. Neither did he deposit the P16 for the court fee, execute the bond required by law, nor even
make the slightest intimation that he was willing at that moment to comply with the said requirements, which was the
least that he could have done in order to file his appeal in due form. Far from doing this, he himself asserted that he
took no sureties with him and did not tell the justice of the peace that he carried money.

And he also testified that what he said to the latter was only that he would file an appeal. But the appeal was not
filed. He did not comply with, nor did he do anything to comply with any of the essential formalities prescribed by law
for the perfecting of an appeal. As the justice of the peace states, when he saw that the plaintiff brought nothing, that
is, neither money for a deposit nor a bond, he told him to return on another day was not the reason why the appeal
was not filed within the term specified by law; it was said because the plaintiff did not then formally file the appeal.
We find, therefore, that it has not been shown that the latter was prevented through error or other cause not
imputable to himself from filing the appeal in due time.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the petition contained in the complaint is denied, without special
finding as to costs of this instance.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson and Moreland, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1910/mar1910/gr_l-5006_1910.html 2/2