[ G. R. No. 44513. January 16, 1936 ] 62 Phil. 886
[ G. R. No. 44513. January 16, 1936 ]
L. H. HENNING, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE WESTERN EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY CO., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
VILLA-REAL, J.:
This is a motion filed by the defendant the Western Equipment and Supply Co. to reconsider and set aside the decision of this court of November 27,1935, granting the motion of the plaintiff-appellee L. H. Henning and ordering the dismissal of the appeal interposed by said defendant-appellant, and to render another denying said motion to dismiss the appeal in question. The question for reconsideration is whether or not the mailing: of a notice of intention to appeal is equivalent to the filing thereof in the corresponding office of the clerk of court. From the promulgation of the decision in the case of Layda vs. Legazpi (39 Phil., 83), wherein the ruling was laid down that the aggrieved party, after notice of the ruling upon his motion for a new trial, has five days within which to file notice of his intention to present a bill of exceptions, the rule has been that said motion should be filed or deposited with the clerk within said period of five days. (U. S. vs. Tenorio, 37 Phil, 7; Yango vs. Ocampo, 57 Phil., 1.) Effective April 1, 1933, this court adopted a new rule for proceedings before it, Rule 13 of which reads:
“13. All notifications required by these rules shall, unless otherwise expressly provided, take effect five days from service. This period shall be computed from the day upon which the notice is served. The date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits required by the rules of this court, as shown by the post-office registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in this court.”
And effective June 1, 1933, this court likewise prescribed new rules for the Courts of First Instance. Although the latter rules do not contain the same provision above quoted, Rule 26 thereof reads:
“26. Proof of personal service of a notice of motion or pleading shall be filed, such proof to consist of a written admission of the party served or the affidavit of the party serving containing a full statement of the date, place, and manner of the service. If the service is made by mail, proof thereof shall be made by affidavit of the person mailing, and by the production of the registry receipt issued by the mailing office if the same is registered. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon receipt thereof by the sender, or in lieu thereof the letter unclaimed.”
It will be seen that Rule 13 of the revised rules of this court expressly provides that the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits required by the rules of this court, as shown by the post-office registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in this court. The requirement that the notice of intention to appeal should be filed in the office of the clerk of court is a ruling laid down by this court in said case of Layda vs. Legazpi. We see no reason why this court should establish a difference between the filing of motions and other judicial papers in it and the filing thereof in the Courts of First Instance, as to place. This court having established in its rules that the date of the mailing of judicial papers shall be considered as the date of their filing in this court, to maintain the former ruling that a judicial paper shall be considered duly presented only when filed with the clerk of a Court of First Instance would be to establish two distinct procedures for similar cases, which.would be anomalous and contrary to the purposes of uniformity which should be followed as closely as possible in judicial proceedings. The absence in the rules prescribed by this court for Courts of First Instance of the same provision contained in the rules of this court relative to the place where a judicial paper may be filed has clearly been an involuntary omission inasmuch as this court could not have intended and does not wish to establish different procedures in similar cases whether in the Courts of First Instance or in this court, being contrary to its policy to simplify judicial procedure in order to avoid confusion. Consistent with the idea and the desire to establish uniformity in judicial proceedings and to simplify them, we supply the involuntary omission committed in drafting the rules for the Courts of First Instance and, interpreting the spirit thereof, we (hold that, the same as in this court, the date of the mailing of a notice of intention to appeal shall be considered as the date of the filing thereof in the corresponding Court of First Instance. Wherefore, the motion for reconsideration is granted and, setting aside the decision the reconsideration of which is sought, the motion to dismiss the appeal interposed by the defendant-appellant the Western Equipment and Supply Co. is denied. So ordered. Avancena, C. J., Malcolm, Abad Santos, Vickers, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur. Recto, J.: I concur in the result.