Case Digest: ANDY QUELNAN v .VHF PHILIPPINES, INC. et al.

ANDY QUELNAN v .VHF PHILIPPINES, INC. et al.

433 SCRA 631 (2004), EN BANC

Petitioner Andy Quelnan purchased from respondents VHF Philippines, Inc. (VHF) and Vicente Tan a unit 15-0 of Legaspi Tower condominium for which he made an overpayment. Moreover, he claims that under a verbal agreement with VHF, the said overpayment shall be applied to the purchase of Unit 20-G for which, the balance, he would pay before the end of June 1991 without any interest thereon.

Pursuant to the verbal agreement, he immediately took possession of Unit 20-G and made several payments therefor. However, in May 1991 when he offered to settle his remaining balance, he was informed that Unit 20-G was mortgaged in favor of Philippine Trust Company and that he was being charged by VHF the interest and penalties due on the mortgage obligation. VHF claimed that it merely leased said unit to Quelnan and since he failed to pay, the respondents VHF, et al. filed an ejectment suit before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).

The MeTC ordered the ejectment of Quelnan. He did not appeal said decision, thus he was ejected from said unit.

Close to two years later, Quelnan filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for rescission of the alleged verbal contract of sale and damages against VHF from which a pre-trial of the case was set. However, during the scheduled pre-trial on January 17, 1997, Quelnan and his counsel (despite that he was given a Special Power of Attorney to represent Quelnan) did not show up, thus, the presiding judge dismissed the complaint.

Quelnan‘s counsel, instead of filing an appeal, moved to file a Manifestation and Ex-parte motion to set aside the said dismissal invoking excusable negligence — that he overlooked to transfer from his 1996 diary the entry regarding the scheduled pre-trial conference on January 17, 1997 to his 1997 diary. When the motion was denied, he filed an Omnibus motion (Notice of appeal) but the same was denied by order of March 12, 1997 upon the holding of the trial court that it was filed out of time. As a result, Quelnan filed a petition for mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA however, treated the said action as one for certiorari, as in essence, the petition alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court thus denying Quelnan‘s petition on the ground that the order of the trial court is not appealable.

The CA moreover, assails that since it was the Order of March 12, 1997 denying Quelnan‘s Omnibus Motion-Motion for Reconsideration of the January 17, 1999 order of dismissal, and not the latter order, which was appealed, said Order of January 17, 1999 had long attained finality.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the notice of appeal was seasonably filed

HELD:

The timeliness of the filing of a notice of appeal determines whether the trial court‘s giving due course to it is ministerial. If the notice of appeal is filed within the reglementary period, it becomes the ministerial duty of the trial court to give it due course. If not, the trial court cannot be compelled by mandamus to do so.

Quelnan‘s counsel received the January 17, 1997 Order declaring Quelnan non-suited and accordingly dismissed the complaint on February 12, 1997. When Quelnan‘s counsel filed a Manifestation and Ex-Parte Motion on January 24, 1997, prior to his receipt on February 12, 1997 of the January 17, 1997 Order, the 15-day period to appeal did not begin to run, for such period is reckoned from notice of such judgment or final order or any subsequent amendment thereof, and it is interrupted by the timely filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration.

When Quelnan‘s counsel received then on February 12, 1997 a copy of the January 17, 1997 Order declaring him non-suited, and filed on February 24, 1997 an Omnibus Motion to set aside said order, 12 days of the 15-day period had elapsed. The filing of the Omnibus Motion interrupted the period of appeal, and it began to run again when, on March 19, 1997, Quelnan‘s counsel received a copy of the Order of March 12, 1997 denying Quelna‘s Omnibus Motion.

The appellate court noted, however, that since it was the Order of March 12, 1997 denying Quelnan‘s Omnibus Motion-Motion for Reconsideration of the January 17, 1997 Order of dismissal, and not the latter order, which was appealed, said Order of January 17, 1999 had “long attained finality.”

Share this:

Leave a Reply