Annulment of order of non-suit; no forum shopping wherepetitioner also files notice of appeal pertaining to decisionon the merits.Finally, we find no merit in respondentbank’s claim that petitioner committed forum shopping.The issue brought before us is whether the CA correctlydismissed petitioner’s petition for annulment of the Orderdated November 11, 2003 declaring her non-suited forfailure to appear at the pre-trial conference of Civil CaseNo. V-072-07-2002. On the other hand, petitioner’s Noticeof Appeal in Civil Case Nos. V-006-01-2002 and V-072-07-2002 pertained to the decision of the RTC rendered on themerits.
Spouses Oscar Arcenas and Dolores Arcenas vs.Queen City Development Bank and Court of Appeals(Nineteenth Division), G.R. No. 166819, June 16, 2010
Appeals; effect of failure to appeal. In its Memorandum,SPI prays that petitioners be ordered to pay 3% interestmonthly as stipulated in the Contract for Lease, plusattorney’s fees. However, as SPI did not appeal the RTCDecision before the appellate court, we cannot act on thesame. It is well-settled that a party who has not appealedfrom a Decision cannot seek any relief other than what isprovided in the judgment appealed from. SPI did notappeal, thus it cannot obtain from the appellate court anyaffirmative relief other than those granted in the Decisionof the court below. It can only advance any argument thatit may deem necessary to defeat petitioners’ claim or touphold the Decision that is being disputed, and it canassign errors in its brief if such is required to strengthenthe views expressed by the court a quo. These assignederrors, in turn, may be considered by the appellate courtsolely to maintain the appealed decision on other grounds,but not for the purpose of reversing or modifying thejudgment in SPI’s favor and giving it other reliefs.We find on record that SPI’s counsel, with the concurrenceof its Vice President, withdrew his appearance onNovember 24, 2000. The RTC granted said withdrawal inits Order dated January 5, 2001. Subsequently, the casewas decided by the RTC and appealed by the petitioners tothe CA. In due time, the CA rendered judgment on thesame and petitioners filed this Petition for Review onCertiorari. SPI did not interpose an appeal from the RTCDecision nor from the CA Decision. After more than sixyears, on September 13, 2007, a new law firm entered itsappearance as counsel of SPI. SPI now claims that it wasnot able to appeal the Decision of the RTC andsubsequently of the CA which failed to impose 3% monthlyinterest as provided in the Contract of Lease because itnever received said Decisions, considering that its counselhas migrated to another country and that petitionersmisled the courts about SPI’s address. We are notpersuaded. SPI failed to exercise due diligence in keepingitself updated on the developments of the case. That itserstwhile counsel has not communicated for a long periodof time and has migrated abroad, should have cautioned itthat something was amiss with the case. By that time, SPIshould have initiated moves to locate its counsel or toinquire from the court on the progress of the case. Itshould have ensured that its address on record with thecourt is updated and current. Thus, it has been equallystressed that litigants represented by counsel should notexpect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and awaitthe outcome of the case. Instead, they should give thenecessary assistance to their counsel and exercise duediligence to monitor the status of the case for what is atstake is ultimately their interest.
Selwyn F. Lao, et al.vs. Special Plans, Inc., G.R. No. 164791, June 29, 2010
Appeals; factual findings of trial court. Jurisprudencedictates that factual findings of the trial court, especiallywhen affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded thehighest degree of respect and are considered conclusivebetween the parties. A review of such findings by thisCourt is not warranted except for highly meritoriouscircumstances when: (1) the findings of a trial court aregrounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;(2) a lower court’s inference from its factual findings ismanifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there isgrave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4)the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5)there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) the findings of factare conclusions without mention of the specific evidenceon which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.None of the foregoing exceptions which would warrant areversal of the assailed decision obtains in this instance.
St. Joseph’s College, Sr., Josephini Ambatali, SFIC, andRosalinda Tabugo vs. Jayson Miranda, represented byhis father, Rodolfo S. Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June29, 2010
Appeals; “Fresh period rule” in “Neypes v. Court of Appeals” not applicable to administrative appeal fromDENR regional office to DENR Secretary.TheissuebeforetheCourtofAppeals was whether the “freshperiod rule” laid down in Neypes applies to petitioner’scase, i.e., that he had a fresh period of 15 days to appealRD Sampulna’s October 16, 2007 Order to the DENRSecretary, counted from her notice on September 12, 2007of the RD’s Order of September 6, 2007 denying hermotion for reconsideration of the decision. The “freshperiod rule” in Neypes declares:To standardize the appeal periods provided in theRulesand to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal theircases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh periodof 15 days within which to file the notice of appealin theRegional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the orderdismissing a motion for a new trial or motion forreconsideration.Henceforth, this “fresh period rule”shallalsoapplytoRule40 governing appeals from theMunicipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule42on petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts tothe Court of Appeals; Rule43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals; and Rule45governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. Thenew rule aims to regiment or make the appeal perioduniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denyingthe motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration(whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.x x x. This pronouncement is not inconsistent with