Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Armigos Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    edrea_abon
    Cristito Mata filed a complaint against Rudy Gleo Armigos in municipal court for damages and attorney's fees. The court ruled in favor of Mata. Armigos received the decision on June 8, 1977 and filed a notice of appeal the next day, but did not fully perfect the appeal until June 24. The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal as untimely. Armigos argued his appeal was timely because the 15 day period should be counted by hours from when he received the decision. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court rejected this interpretation and found that counting partial days would cause confusion. They held that Armigos should have filed his fully perfected appeal by June 23 to be timely, as the law requires

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Armigos Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    edrea_abon
    47 views1 page
    Cristito Mata filed a complaint against Rudy Gleo Armigos in municipal court for damages and attorney's fees. The court ruled in favor of Mata. Armigos received the decision on June 8, 1977 and filed a notice of appeal the next day, but did not fully perfect the appeal until June 24. The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal as untimely. Armigos argued his appeal was timely because the 15 day period should be counted by hours from when he received the decision. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court rejected this interpretation and found that counting partial days would cause confusion. They held that Armigos should have filed his fully perfected appeal by June 23 to be timely, as the law requires

    Original Description:

    civil

    Original Title

    Armigos vs CA Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cristito Mata filed a complaint against Rudy Gleo Armigos in municipal court for damages and attorney's fees. The court ruled in favor of Mata. Armigos received the decision on June 8, 1977 and filed a notice of appeal the next day, but did not fully perfect the appeal until June 24. The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal as untimely. Armigos argued his appeal was timely because the 15 day period should be counted by hours from when he received the decision. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court rejected this interpretation and found that counting partial days would cause confusion. They held that Armigos should have filed his fully perfected appeal by June 23 to be timely, as the law requires

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    47 views1 page

    Armigos Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    edrea_abon
    Cristito Mata filed a complaint against Rudy Gleo Armigos in municipal court for damages and attorney's fees. The court ruled in favor of Mata. Armigos received the decision on June 8, 1977 and filed a notice of appeal the next day, but did not fully perfect the appeal until June 24. The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal as untimely. Armigos argued his appeal was timely because the 15 day period should be counted by hours from when he received the decision. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court rejected this interpretation and found that counting partial days would cause confusion. They held that Armigos should have filed his fully perfected appeal by June 23 to be timely, as the law requires

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-50654 November 6, 1989


    RUDY GLEO ARMIGOS, petitioner,
    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS, CRISTITO MATA, and JUDGE L. D. CARPIO, in his capacity as
    Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur, Branch V, respondents.
    FACTS:
    Private respondent, Cristito Mata, filed a complaint against Rudy Gleo Armigos with the
    Municipal Court of Digos, Davao del Sur for the collection of damages and attorney's fees.
    After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of Cristito Mata. A copy of the decision was
    received by Armigos on June 8, 1977, and the following day, June 9, 1977, he filed a notice of
    appeal with the said municipal court, and on June 24, 1977, he completed the other
    requirements for the perfection of an appeal, including the filing of an appeal bond and the
    payment of the appellate court docket fee. But the presiding judge of Court of First Instance,
    Judge L.D. Carpio dismissed the appeal for it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
    Armigos filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus with preliminary injunction with the Court of
    Appeals, claiming that from June 8, 1977, when he received a copy of the decision of the
    municipal court, to June 24, 1977, when he perfected his appeal, only fifteen (15) days had
    elapsed so that the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur, dismissing his
    appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary period, is erroneous and contrary to
    law. The petitioner contended that the computation of the period to appeal should commence
    on the hour he received copy of the decision, so that the first of the 1 5-day period comprising
    24 hours is: from 4pm of June 9, 1977 to 4pm of June 10, 1977 and the last day, from 4pm of
    June 23, 1977 to 4pm of June 24, 1977.
    ISSUE/S:
    a.) Whether or not the computation of the period to appeal should commence on the
    hour of the receipt of the decision.
    b.) Whether or not Armigos filed his appeal on time.
    HELD:
    a.) No. The Court of Appeals rejected Armigos interpretation for it would result in many
    confusing situations and many unreliable testimonies as to the time a copy of a
    decision, order or pleading.
    In the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Encarnacion, the Court held that when a
    law was to be effective upon approval by the President and the President signed the
    same on June 16, 1950, the law should be considered to have taken effect not on the
    exact hour when the President signed the same on June 16, 1950 but from the very
    first minute or hour of said day of June 16, 1950.

    b.) No. Because it was filed beyond the reglementary period. He should have filed it on
    June 23, 1977 for his appeal to be valid. Art. 13 of the NCC, provides that in
    computing period, the 1st day is excluded, the last day is included.
    The Petition is DENIED.
    Art. 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that
    years are of three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four
    hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise.
    If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which
    they respectively have.
    In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included.

    You might also like