Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50647:gr-158941-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:08:19+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 158941 - TIMESHARE REALTY CORP. v. CESAR LAO, ET AL.
TIMESHARE REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CESAR LAO and CYNTHIA V. CORTEZ, Respondents.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the October 30, 2002 Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied due course to the appeal of Timeshare Realty Corporation (petitioner) from the March 25, 2002 Decision2 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in SEC Case No. 01-99-6199; and the July 4, 2003 CA Resolution,3 which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
On October 6, 1996, herein petitioner sold to Ceasar M. Lao and Cynthia V. Cortez (respondents), one timeshare of Laguna de Boracay for US$7,500.00 under Contract No. 135000998 payable in eight months and fully paid by the respondents.
Sometime in February 1998, the SEC issued a resolution to the effect that petitioner was without authority to sell securities, like timeshares, prior to February 11, 1998. It further stated in the resolution/order that the Registration Statement of petitioner became effective only on February 11, 1998. It also held that the 30 days within which a purchaser may exercise the option to unilaterally rescind the purchase agreement and receive the refund of money paid applies to all purchase agreements entered into by petitioner prior to the effectivity of the Registration Statement.
Petitioner sought a reconsideration of the aforesaid order but the SEC denied the same in a letter dated March 9, 1998.
Respondents directly filed with SEC En Banc6 a Complaint7 against petitioner and the Members of its Board of Directors - Julius S. Strachan, Angel G. Vivar, Jr. and Cecilia R. Palma - for violation of Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 178.8 Petitioner filed an Answer9 to the Complaint but the SEC En Banc, in an Order10 dated April 25, 2000, expunged the Answer from the records due to tardiness.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration12 which the SEC En Banc denied in an Order13 dated June 24, 2002.
Under Section 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioners shall not be given an extension longer than fifteen (15) days from the expiration of the reglementary period, except for the most compelling reason.
Thus, on 24 July 2002, in the absence of a compelling reason that justifies the granting of a longer period of extension, this Court issued a resolution wherein petitioners were given an extension of ONLY fifteen days from 10 July 2002 or until 25 July 2002 within which to file the Petition for Review, otherwise, the above entitled case will be dismissed.
However, records show that petitioners filed their Petition for Review only on 19 August 2002, which is twenty-five (25) days beyond the allowed 15-day extended period granted by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the appeal from the decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Case No. 01-99-6199 is hereby DISMISSED for failure of the petitioners to file their Petition for Review under the 15-day period granted by this Court as provided by Rule 43, Section 4 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
Its motion for extension being inherently flawed, petitioner should not have presumed that the CA would fully grant the same.28 Instead, it should have exercised due diligence by filing the proper petition within the allowable period,29 or at the very least, ascertaining from the CA whether its motion for extension had been acted upon.30 As it were, petitioner's counsel left the country, unmindful of the possibility that his client's period to appeal was about to lapse - as it indeed lapsed on July 25, 1999, after the CA allowed them a 15-day extension only, in view of the restriction under Section 4, Rule 43. Thus, petitioner has only itself to blame that the Petition for Review it filed on August 19, 1999 was late by 25 days. The CA cannot be faulted for dismissing it.
The Court notes that the CA reckoned the 15-day extension it granted to petitioner from July 10, 1999, the date petitioner filed its Motion for Extension, rather than from July 19, 1999, the date of expiration of petitioner's original period to appeal. While such computation of the CA appears to be erroneous, petitioner did not question it in the present petition. But even if we do reckon the 15-day extension period from July 19, 1999, the same would have ended on August 3, 1999, making petitioner's appeal still inexcusably tardy by 16 days. Either way we reckon it, therefore, petitioner's appeal was not perfected within the period prescribed under Rule 43.
Nevertheless, the Court opts to resolve the substantive issues raised by petitioner in its appeal so as to determine the lawful rights of the parties and put an end to the litigation.
Petitioner claims that at the time it entered into a timeshare purchase agreement with respondents on October 6, 1996, it already possessed the requisite license and marketing agreement to engage in such transactions,31 as evidenced by its registration with the SEC as a corporation.32 Petitioner argues that when it was registered and authorized by the SEC as broker of securities33 - such as the Laguna de Boracay timeshares - this had the effect of ratifying its October 6, 1996 purchase agreement with respondents, and removing any cause for the latter to rescind it.
(a) A copy of its articles of incorporation with all amendments thereof and its existing by-laws or instruments corresponding thereto, whatever the name, if the issuer be a corporation.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong and concurred in by Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Andres E. Reyes, Jr.; rollo, p. 17.
4 SEC Decision, rollo, pp. 42-43.
6 It is noted that the propriety of the filing of the complaint directly with the SEC En Banc was never raised as an issue.
8 The Revised Securities Act, approved February 23, 1982.
10 SEC Decision, supra note 4, at 42.
14 CA rollo, p. 2.
16 CA rollo, p. 6.
21 Petition, rollo, p. 11.
22 Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 149589, September 15, 2006, 502 SCRA 87, 91.
23 Ang v. Grageda, G.R. No. 166239, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 424, 438; Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633, 646; Petilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150792, March 3, 2004, 424 SCRA 254, 262.
24 The Securities Regulation Code, approved July 19, 2000.
25 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. v. G.G. Sportswear Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 146526, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 578, 585.
26 MuÃ±ez v. Jomo, G.R. No. 173253, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 300, 307.
27 Bernardo v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 166980, April 4, 2007, 520 SCRA 332, 341-342. See also Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara, G.R. No. 142937, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 41, 51; Marcial v. Hi-Cement Corporation/Union Cement Corporation, G.R. No. 144900, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 388, 396.
28 Bernardo v. People of the Philippines, supra note 27, at 341.
29 Gochan v. Gochan, 446 Phil. 433, 456 (2003); Sps. Galen v. Atty. Paguirigan, 428 Phil. 590, 596 (2002).
30 Ang v. Grageda, supra note 23, at 444.
31 Petition, rollo, p. 11.
36 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. v. G.G. Sportswear Manufacturing Corporation, supra note 25, at 585-586.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.