Art. 13.

When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that
years are of three hundred sixty-five days each months, of thirty days days, of twenty-four
hours and nights from sunset to sunrise.
!f months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which
they respectively have.
!n computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included.
G.R. No. L-50654 November 6, 1989
RUDY GLEO ARMIGOS, petitioner,
vs.
COUR O! A""EALS, CRISIO MAA, #$% &UDGE L. D. CAR"IO, '$ (') *#+#*',- #)
&.%/e o0 ,(e Co.r, o0 !'r), I$),#$*e o0 D#v#o %e1 S.r, 2r#$*( 3, respondents.
"A#$%&
'rivate respondent, #ristito (ata, filed a complaint against )udy *leo Armigos with the
(unicipal #ourt of +igos, +avao del %ur for the collection of damages and attorney,s fees.
After trial, -udgment was rendered in favor of #ristito (ata. A copy of the decision was
received by Armigos on .une /, 1011, and the following day, .une 0, 1011, he filed a notice of
appeal with the said municipal court, and on .une 23, 1011, he completed the other
re4uirements for the perfection of an appeal, including the filing of an appeal bond and the
payment of the appellate court docket fee. 5ut the presiding -udge of #ourt of "irst !nstance,
.udge 6.+. #arpio dismissed the appeal for it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Armigos filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus with preliminary in-unction with the #ourt of
Appeals, claiming that from .une /, 1011, when he received a copy of the decision of the
municipal court, to .une 23, 1011, when he perfected his appeal, only fifteen 7189 days had
elapsed so that the decision of the #ourt of "irst !nstance of +avao del %ur, dismissing his
appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary period, is erroneous and contrary to
law. $he petitioner contended that the computation of the period to appeal should commence
on the hour he received copy of the decision, so that the first of the 1 8-day period comprising
23 hours is& from 3pm of .une 0, 1011 to 3pm of .une 1:, 1011 and the last day, from 3pm of
.une 23, 1011 to 3pm of .une 23, 1011.
!%%;<=%&
a.9 Whether or not the computation of the period to appeal should commence on the
>hour? of the receipt of the decision.
b.9 Whether or not Armigos filed his appeal on time.
@<6+&
a.9 Ao. $he #ourt of Appeals re-ected ArmigosB interpretation for it would result in many
confusing situations and many unreliable testimonies as to the time a copy of a
decision, order or pleading.
!n the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Encarnacion, the #ourt held that when a
law was to be effective upon approval by the 'resident and the 'resident signed the
same on .une 1C, 108:, the law should be considered to have taken effect not on the
exact hour when the 'resident signed the same on .une 1C, 108: but from the very
first minute or hour of said day of .une 1C, 108:.
b.9 Ao. 5ecause it was filed beyond the reglementary period. @e should have filed it on
.une 23, 1011 for his appeal to be valid. Art. 13 of the A##, provides that in
computing period, the 1
st
day is excluded, the last day is included.
$he 'etition is +<A!<+.