G.R. No. 132425 , August 31, 1999
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, represented by its Division Superintendent Region 2, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LUCAS TANGUILAN, JULIANA TANGUILAN, assisted by her husband, ROBERTO TANGUILAN, DOMINGO TANGUILAN, JUAN TANGUILAN, JOSE TANGUILAN, CATARINA TANGUILAN, PAULINO TANGUILAN, PEDRO TANGUILAN and INES TANGUILAN, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the Tanguilans, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership with damages against the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) over a parcel of land covered by OCT No. 2145. Summons was served on DECS on January 18, 1996. DECS, through its Schools Division Superintendent, filed a motion for extension to file an answer, which the trial court granted, giving until February 17, 1996. On February 22, 1996, DECS filed another motion for a new period to file an answer. The following day, private respondents moved to declare DECS in default for failure to file an answer within the granted period. On March 1, 1996, the trial court issued an order declaring DECS in default, finding no legal basis to grant the second motion for extension as it was filed after the expiration of the original period, and set the reception of evidence. DECS filed a motion for reconsideration, a motion to admit its attached answer, and a rejoinder, all of which were opposed by private respondents. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on September 10, 1996. On October 29, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the Tanguilans, ordering DECS to pay rentals, vacate the land, pay attorney’s fees, and costs. DECS received a copy of the decision on November 5, 1996, and filed a motion for reconsideration on November 20, 1996, which was denied on March 14, 1997. DECS filed a notice of appeal on March 31, 1997. The trial court dismissed the notice of appeal for being filed out of time and issued a writ of execution. DECS then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, thereby upholding the trial court’s dismissal of DECS’s notice of appeal for being filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right, and must be exercised in accordance with the law. Under Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the period for appeal is fifteen (15) days from notice of the final order or decision. DECS admitted in its opposition to the motion for issuance of a writ of execution that its notice of appeal was filed two days late, as its counsel was out of town attending to another case and only received the denial of the motion for reconsideration on the afternoon of March 31, 1997. The Court held that failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is both mandatory and jurisdictional; it renders the decision final and executory and deprives appellate courts of jurisdiction to alter it. The Court further ruled that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the lapse was due to the neglect of counsel. The practice of seeking to set aside a final judgment due to counsel’s failure to personally receive a copy cannot be countenanced, as it would make the end of litigation speculative and exacerbate court congestion.