G.R. No. 152150 - SPS. REYNALDO O. PADUA AND IRENE C. PADUA AND GLADYS C. PADUA, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND UNIBANCARD CORPORATION.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the period within which to file appellees' brief shall again commence to run from notice. SO ORDERED . [13] Hence, this petition which proffers the sole issue: THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITIONERS' MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CONTRARY TO THE RULES AND THE JURISPRUDENTIAL PRECEPTS LAID DOWN BY THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL [14] Did the appellate court commit grave abuse of discretion when it allowed respondent's appeal? Unibancard obtained notice of the October 25, 1999 RTC Order on December 6, 1999. On December 15, 1999, it filed a Motion for Reconsideration. [15] Then, on January 21, 2000, respondent's counsel was notified of the Order dated December 17, 1999 which denied said motion for reconsideration. Petitioners submit that Unibancard had only until January 28, 2000 to perfect its appeal. They explain that since eight days [16] had elapsed when Unibancard sought reconsideration, it had only the remaining 7 days of the 15-day reglementary period within which to appeal from notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration. Since Unibancard filed a notice of appeal on February 4, 2000, petitioners contend that its appeal had been filed out of time. Hence, the appellate court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. In its Memorandum, [17] Unibancard admits having filed its appeal and appellant's brief beyond the period allowed by the Rules. It explains, however, that a computer virus plagued all the computers of its counsel's law firm and rendered the file containing its appellant's brief inaccessible. It purportedly took Unibancard's counsel 10 days to reconstruct the same. Unibancard agrees with the Court of Appeals that the ruling in Ginete v. Court of Appeals [18] applies squarely to its case. After a careful consideration of the facts of this case, the Court resolves to dismiss the instant petition. Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court expressly provides the period for ordinary appeals: SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal. -The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellants shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order. However, on appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken within forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. In the case of Neypes v. Court of Appeals, [19] the Court had occasion to settle the uncertainty as regards the reckoning point of the 15-day period to appeal. We held that: ... [A] party litigant may file his notice of appeal within 15 days from rec