TodayisThursday,February18,2016

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.199354June26,2013
WILSONT.GO,Petitioner,
vs.
BPIFINANCECORPORATION,Respondent.
DECISION
BRION,J.:
Beforeusisthepetitionforreviewoncertiorari,1filedbyWilsonGounderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,assailing
the resolutions dated May 4, 20102 and October 12, 20113 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No.
111800.TheCAdeniedGo'spetitionforreviewforhavingbeenfiledoutoftime.
TheAntecedentFacts
BPI Finance Corporation (BPI), operating under the name BPI Express Credit Card, has been engaged in the
businessofextendingcreditaccommodationsthroughtheuseofcreditcards.Underthesystem,BPIagreesto
extend credit accommodations to its cardholders for the purchase of goods and services from BPIs member
establishments on the condition that the charges incurred shall be reimbursed by the cardholders to BPI upon
properbilling.4
BPI filed a complaint for collection of sum of money before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 67,
Makati City, against Go. The complaint alleged that Go was among the cardholders of BPI when he was the
Executive VicePresident of Noahs Ark Merchandising and that Go incurred credit charges amounting to
P77,970.91.5
Go denied the allegations, arguing that the BPI credit card was a company account and was issued to him
becauseofhispositionasExecutiveVicePresident.HealsostatedthathehadactuallyrequestedfromBPIan
updatedstatementofaccount,aswellassupportingdocumentsforpurposesofaccountingandverification,but
BPIfailedtocomply.6
Atthepretrial,thepartiesagreedtothetruthofthecontentsofthefollowing:
1.CreditCardApplication
2.LetterdatedFebruary16,2000whichwassenttoGoathisofficeaddressatNoahsArkMerchandising
3.StatementsofAccountdatedFebruary20,2000,May20,2000,April20,2000andMarch20,2000.7
BPI also presented a witness who testified during trial that the BPI credit card belongs to Go. However, Go
insisted that he cannot be held liable since he was only acting in behalf of the company. In his comment, he
argued that the credit card application was a mere "pro forma" document unilaterally prepared by BPI that the
lettersenttohisofficeaddresswouldprovethatitwasacompanyaccountandthatalthoughthestatementsof
accountwerenotdisputed,heallegedthathedidnotreceiveanydemandletterfromBPI.8
Gofailedtopresentanyevidenceduringthehearing.Asaresult,theMeTCdeclaredthathehadwaivedhisright
topresentevidence.Forthisreason,thecourtdeemedthecasesubmittedfordecision.9
OnApril23,2008,theMeTCrenderedadecision10whosedispositiveportionreads:
WHEREFORE,theCourtRENDERSjudgmentholdingthedefendantWilsonT.GoliabletopayplaintiffBPICard

FinanceCorporationthefollowingamounts:
1.P77,970.91plusinterestof1%permonthandpenaltyof1%permonthtobecomputedfromMay23,
2000untilfullpayment
2.10%ofthetotalamountdueasattorneysfeesand
3.Costofsuit.11
TheMeTCruledthatnothinginthecreditcardapplicationstatesthatthecreditcardwasfortheaccountofthe
company.ThestatementofaccountwasaddressedtoNoahsArkMerchandisingsimplybecauseGorequested
it.Bypreponderanceofevidence,theMeTCfoundthatBPIprovedtheexistenceofGosdebt.12
GoappealedtheMeTCdecisiontotheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC).InadecisiondatedSeptember4,2009,the
RTCfullyaffirmedtheMeTCdecision.Gofiledamotionforreconsideration,whichtheRTCdeniedinanorder
datedNovember16,2009.GoscounselreceivedthedenialofthemotionforreconsiderationonNovember26,
2009.13
On December 10, 2009, Go filed before the CA a motion for extension of time for thirty (30) days, or up to
January10,2009,withinwhichtoappeal.However,sinceJanuary10,2010wasaSunday,Goinsteadfiledhis
petitionforreviewonJanuary11,2010.
OnMay20,2010,fourmonthsafterthemotionforextensionoftimewasfiled,theCAissuedthedisputedMay4,
2010resolution,denyingthepetitionforreview:
Petitioners motion for extension of thirty (30) days is PARTLY GRANTED. Petitioner is granted "an additional
periodof15daysonlywithinwhichtofilethepetitionforreview."ConsideringthatthePetitionforReviewwasfiled
beyondthegrantedextension,thesameisherebyDENIEDADMISSION.14
GofiledamotionforreconsiderationwhichtheCAalsodeniedinaResolutiondatedOctober12,2011.TheCA
explainedthatwhilethemotionforextensionoftimewasgranted,onlyaperiodoffifteen(15)dayswasgiven,not
therequestedthirty(30)days.Hence,thelastperiodtofilethepetitionforreviewshouldhavebeenonDecember
25,2009,notonJanuary10,2010asGohadassumed.SinceGofiledhispetitionforreviewafterDecember25,
2009,hisfilingwasoutoftime.
ThePetition
GonowquestionstheCArulingsbeforeus.HepositsthatitwasonlyonMay20,2010,orfourmonthsafterhe
filed his motion for extension of time, when he became aware that he had only been given an extension of 15
days.Healsoclaimsthathewasdenieddueprocessonmeretechnicality,withoutresolvingthepetitionbasedon
themeritsortheevidencepresented.
TheCourtsRuling
Wedenythepetitionforlackofmerit.
Section1,Rule42oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat:
Section 1. How appeal taken time for filing. A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial
CourtrenderedintheexerciseofitsappellatejurisdictionmayfileaverifiedpetitionforreviewwiththeCourtof
Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees,
depositingtheamountofP500.00forcosts,andfurnishingtheRegionalTrialCourtandtheadversepartywitha
copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision
soughttobereviewedorofthedenialofpetitionersmotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationfiledinduetimeafter
judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the
depositforcostsbeforetheexpirationofthereglementaryperiod,theCourtofAppealsmaygrantanadditional
period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted
except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. [emphasis, italics and
underscoreours]
The rule is clear that an appeal to the CA must be filed within a period of fifteen (15) days. While a further
extensionoffifteen(15)daysmayberequested,aspecificrequestmustbemadewithspecificallycitedreason
for the request. The CA may grant the request only at its discretion and, by jurisprudence, only on the basis of
reasonsitfindsmeritorious.
Undertherequirements,itisclearthatonlyfifteen(15)daysmayinitiallyberequested,notthethirty(30)daysGo
requested.ThepetitionercannotalsoassumethathismotionhasbeengrantediftheCAdidnotimmediatelyact.

Infact,facedwiththefailuretoact,theconclusionisthatnofavorableactionhadtakenplaceandthemotionhad
beendenied.Itisthusimmaterialthattheresolutiongrantingtheextensionoftimewasonlyissuedfourmonths
later, although such late action is a response we cannot approve of. In any case, the late response cannot be
usedasanexcusetodelaythefilingofitspleadingasapartycannotmakeanyassumptiononhowhismotion
would be resolved. Precisely, a motion is submitted to the court for resolution and we cannot allow any
assumptionthatitwouldbegranted.
The right to appeal is a statutory right, not a natural nor a constitutional right. The party who intends to appeal
must comply with the procedures and rules governing appeals otherwise, the right of appeal may be lost or
squandered.15ContrarytoGosassertion,hisappealwasnotdeniedonameretechnicality."Theperfectionof
anappealinthemannerandwithintheperiodpermittedbylawisnotonlymandatory,butjurisdictional,andthe
failuretoperfectthatappealrendersthejudgmentofthecourtfinalandexecutory."16
InLacsamanav.IAC,17theCourtlaiddownthenowestablishedpolicyonextensionsoftimeinordertoprevent
theabuseofthisrecourse.TheCourtsaid:
BeginningonemonthafterthepromulgationofthisDecision,anextensionofonlyfifteendaysforfilingapetition
forreviewmaybegrantedbytheCourtofAppeals,saveinexceptionallymeritoriouscases.
The motion for extension of time must be filed and the corresponding docket fee paid within the reglementary
periodofappeal.18(italicssuppliedemphasisandunderscoreours)
WesimilarlyruledinVideogramRegulatoryBoardv.CourtofAppeals 19wherewesaidthattheappellant"knew
oroughttohaveknownthat,pursuanttotheaboverule,hismotionforextensionoftimeofthirty(30)dayscould
be granted for only fifteen (15) days. There simply was no basis for assuming that the requested 3 0day
extensionwouldbegranted."Asweheretoforestressed,anextensionoftimetoappealisgenerallyallowedonly
for fifteen (15) days. Go cannot simply demand for a longer period, without citing the reason therefor, for the
court'sconsiderationandapplicationofdiscretion.
Additionally, this Court rules only on questions of law in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
RulesofCourt.ThisCourtislikewiseboundbyfindingsoffactofthelowercourtsintheabsenceofgraveabuse
of discretion, particularly where all three tribunals below have been unanimous in their factual findings. Thus,
evenonthemerits,thereismorethanenoughreasontodenythepresentpetition.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner
WilsonT.Go.
SOORDERED.
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof

theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.1132.
2 Id. at 36. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, and concurred in by Associate Justices

MarioV.LopezandFranchitoN.Diamante.
3Id.at3739.
4Id.at45.
5Ibid.
6Ibid.
7Id.at46.
8Ibid.
9Id.at46.
10Id.at4548.PennedbyPresidingJudgeRicoSebastianD.Liwanag.
11Id.at47.
12Ibid.
13Id.at21.
14Id.at36.
15Lebinv.Mirasol,G.R.No.164255,September7,2011,657SCRA35,44.
16Dematav.CourtofAppeals,363Phil.316,323(1999).
17227Phil.606(1986).
18Id.at613.
19G.R.No.106564,November28,1996,265SCRA50,57.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation