ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC., petitioner and Antique Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco, et al.

appellant, vs. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL., respondents

and appellees. APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila. Macadaeg, J.
Appeals; Perfection of appeal within reglementary period is
mandatory.—The requirement regarding the perfection of an The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but
C.T. Reyes, D.G. Magno and R.R. Tulod for petitioner
jurisdictional. (Miranda vs. Guanzon, 92 Phil. 168).
Same; Judgment becomes final upon failure to perfect
and appellant.
appeal.—The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary Gamboa & Gamboa for respondent and appellee
period has the effect of rendering final the judgment of the court, Zayco.
and the certification of the record on appeal thereafter cannot Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor
restore the jurisdiction which has been lost. The dismissal of the Camilo D. Quiason for appellee Secretary of Agriculture and
appeal can be effected even after the case has been elevated to the Natural Resources.
Court of Appeals. (Miranda vs. Guanzon, supra).
Same; Effect of appellee’s failure to file motion for dismissal REGALA, J.:
of appeal before transmittal of record.—Appellee’s failure to file a
motion for dismissal of appeal in the court of origin before the This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First
transmittal of the record to the appellate court does not constitute Instance of Manila dismissing the petition for certiorari with
a waiver on his part to interpose such objection, preliminary injunction filed by the Antique Sawmills, Inc.
(Miranda vs. Guanzon, supra). seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Executive
Administrative law; Weight of administrative rules and Secretary dated August 27, 1956 and February 25, 1958 in
regulations.—Administrative rules and regulations, issued in
DANR Case Nos. 1020 and 1020-A (In Re Forestry Notice
accordance with law, have the force of law. (Valerio vs.Secretary
of Agriculture, L-18587, April 23, 1963.)
No. 1598).
Same; Rule of non quieta movere.—Administrative The only issue raised in this case is whether the Office of
proceedings must end sometime, just as public policy demands the President still retains or possesses jurisdiction to review
that finality be written on judicial controversies (Manila Electric on appeal a decision of the Secretary or Agriculture and
Co vs. Public Service Commission, 61 Phil. 456). The rule of non Natural Resources which has become final. The issue came
quieta movere prescribes that what was terminated should not be up by reason of the following incidents:
disturbed (Espiritu vs. San Miguel Brewery, 63 Phil. 615). On September 30, 1954, a public bidding was conducted
317 for the award of a 12680-hectare forest area. Four parties
VOL. 17, MAY 30, 1966 317 submitted bid applications with the Bureau of Forestry,
namely: the petitioner-appellant, Antique Sawmills, Inc., Forestry Administrative Order No. 6–2. From the time the
the respondent-appellee, Aquiles Zayco, Crisencio Milendez, movant received notice of the order sought to be reconsidered on
and Pedro T. Lo. On November 29, 1954, the Director of July 28, 1955, to the time he filed his first motion for
Forestry awarded the bid to the respondent-appellee, reconsideration on August 20, 1955, twenty-three (23) days had
elapsed; and from his receipt of the order of this Office dated
Aquiles R. Zayco. Thereafter, the losing bidders appealed
September 10, 1955, denying the first motion for reconsideration
the above award to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
on November 22, 1955, to the filing of the instant motion on
Resources who, on March 23, 1955, however, affirmed the December 19, 1955, twenty-seven (27) days had elapsed. All in all,
same. fifty (50) days had elapsed from his receipt of the order sought to
To the above order of March 23, 1955, all the losing be reconsidered to the filing of the herein motion. Consequently,
bidders filed a motion for reconsideration with the Secretary the said order of this office dated July 14, 1955 had already
of Agricultural and Natural Resources and acting on this become final and executory pursuant to the aforecited regulation.
motion, the said Secretary issued an order on July 14, 1955 “It appears further that the grounds upon which the instant
modifying the original exclusive award to Aquiles R. Zay- motion is based are unmeritorious and undeserving of further
318 consideration. That the appellant Antique Sawmills, Inc. f
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED raudulently misrepresented the facts of this case, is a gratuituous
Antique Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco, et al. assertion belied by the evidence on record and then further charge
that said appellant is a dummy or is acting not on its own behalf
co. Under this July 14, 1955 order, the forest area in
but for another entity, for the present is unfounded and based on
question was awarded in equal portions to Aquiles R. Zayco the mere suspicions of the movant. At any rate, another re-
and the petitioner-appellant, Antique Sawmills, Inc. examination of the evidence on record has not only led us to the
Zayco received a copy of the above-mentioned order on same conclusion, but also convinced us more of the justice and
July 28, 1955, and on August 20, 1955, he filed against it a wisdom of our disposition in the order of July 14, 1955."
motion for reconsideration. On September 10, 1955, this
motion for reconsideration was denied. Zayco received a copy On February 27, 1956, the respondent-appellee appealed the
of this order on November 27, 1955. above order of February 15, 1956 to the Office of the
On December 19, 1955, Zayco filed with the Secretary of President. On March 10, 1956, the herein appellant
Agriculture and Natural Resources a second motion for interposed an opposition to the above-mentioned appeal on
319
reconsideration which, on February 15, 1956, was resolved
VOL. 17, MAY 30, 1966 319
by the latter thus—
“It appears that the herein motion which in effect is a second
Antique Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco, et al.
motion for reconsideration was filed too late, that is, outside the the main ground that the order appealed from had already
reglementary period of thirty (30) days prescribed in Section 10 of become final and executory.
 On August 27, 1956, however, the Executive Secretary is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Thus, since, the
rendered a decision sustaining the appeal and reversing the respondent-appellee failed to perfect his appeal on time and
order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources finality had already set in the order of July 14, 1955, the
dated July 14, 1955. This order of the Executive Secretary Office of the President could not have acquired jurisdiction
awarded the entire forest concession in question to the over the same.
respondent-appellee, Aquiles B. Zayco. Pertinent portion of The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the
the decision reads: 320
“The first issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether or not this 320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Office can pass upon the merits of the instant case, it appearing Antique Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco, et al.
that the appeal was filed after the lapse of thirty (30) days from said period is a mere procedural technicality which, at least
appellant’s receipt of that Department’s order dated July 14, in administrative proceedings, may liberally be relaxed.
1955. It appears, however, in the affidavit of the appellant and in
In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that
1

the records of this case that he was not duly represented by

compliance with the period provided by law for the
counsel in the main stages of the proceedings, and that he was not
aware of the reglementary period within which to take the various perfection of an appeal is not merely mandatory but also a
steps, to protect his rights. Moreover, there was no advertence on jurisdictional requirement. Thus, in the case of Miranda vs.
notice by that Department upon the herein appellant that he had Guanzon, et al., 92 Phil. 168, this Court held:
to exercise nis rights within certain fixed periods. While it can not “Section 13 of Rule 41 provides that when the appeal is not
be denied that, for the sake of orderly proceedings, technical rules perfected within the reglementary period the appeal shall be
may be relaxed in the interest of justice and equity. We are dismissed. The requirement regarding the perfection of an appeal
inclined to liberalize the rule in this case to attain an within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but
approximation to substantial justice. An examination of the jurisdictional. Such failure has the effect of rendering final the
record shows that the order modif ying that Department’s decision judgment of the court, and the certification of the record on appeal
dated March 28, 1955, lacks legal and equitable basis. For this thereafter cannot restore the jurisdiction which has been lost. The
reason, this Office is constrained to pass upon the substantial dismissal of the appeal can be effected even after the case has
merits of the case.” been elevated to the Court of Appeals (Rule 52, Section 1[a]).
Appellee’s failure to file a motion for dismissal of appeal in the
After the denial of his motion for reconsideration on the court of origin before the transmittal of the record to the appellate
order of the Executive Secretary, the petitioner instituted court, does not constitute a waiver on his part to interpose such
with the Court of First Instance of Manila the instant objection. (Italics supplied)
proceedings.
That administrative rules and regulations have the force of
The petitioner’s theory is simple. It contends that the
law can no longer be questioned. Only recently, in the case
period provided by the rules for the perfection of an appeal
of Valerio vs. Secretary of Agriculture, et al., G.R. No. L- of the President subscribes to the above rule. As aptly
18587, April 23, 1963, we reaffirmed that— remarked by Justice Malcolm in Dy Cay vs, Crossfield &
“x x x it cannot be contended, as the court a quo intimated, that O’Brien, 38 Phil. 527:
an administrative regulation should not be given the same weight “Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of
as to rule of court but should rather be given a more liberal occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some
interpretation for, as is well known, a regulation adopted definite date fixed by law. The very object for which courts were
pursuant to law has the force and effect of law. In fact, it is a wise instituted was to put an end to controversy. To fulfill this purpose
policy that administrative regulations be given the same force as and to do so steadily, certain time limits, more or less arbitrary,
rules of court in order to maintain the regularity of administrative have to be set up to spur on the slothful. x x x”
proceedings.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby revoked
The appellees’ view that the period fixed in Administrative and set aside. The award made under the Order of the
Order No. 6–2 of the Director of Forestry cannot bind the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources dated July
Office of the President since the latter has supervision and 14, 1955 is hereby declared valid, effective and subsisting.
control over the former cannot commend itself to sound Costs against the appellee, Aquiles Zayco.
public policy. Even administrative deci- Chief Justice Cesar Bengzon and Justices
_______________
Concepcion, J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, J.P.
1 See Shioji vs. Harvey, 43 Phil. 333; Roman Catholic Bishop of Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, concur.
Tuguegarao vs. Director of Lands, 34 Phil. 623; Estate of Candova and
Zarate vs. Albado, 34 Phil. 920; Bermudez vs. Director of Lands, 36 Phil. Decision reversed.
774.

321
VOL. 17, MAY 30, 1966 321
Antique Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco, et al.
sions must and sometime, as fully as public policy demands
that finality be written on judicial controversies (Manila
Electric Co. vs. Public Service Commission, 61 Phil. 456).
In other words, public interest requires that proceedings
already terminated should not be altered at every step. The
rule of non quieta movere prescribes that what was already
terminated should not be disturbed (Espiritu vs. San Miguel
Brewery, 63 Phil. 615). We do not doubt that even the Office