G.R. No.

171365               October 6, 2010

ERMELINDA C. MANALOTO, AURORA J. CIFRA, FLORDELIZA J. ARCILLA,

LOURDES J. CATALAN, ETHELINDA J. HOLT, BIENVENIDO R. JONGCO,
ARTEMIO R. JONGCO, JR. and JOEL JONGCO, Petitioners,
vs.
ISMAEL VELOSO III, Respondent.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioners filed an unlawful detainer case against respondent for failure to pay rentals
on the leased property owned by petitioners. MeTC decided in favor of the petitioners.
While the respondent’s appeal of the MeTC’s decision is pending before the RTC,
respondent filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages with another RTC
branch. On the complaint for damages, respondent alleged that he supposedly suffered
embarrassment and humiliation when petitioners distributed copies of the
abovementioned MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case to the homeowners of
Horseshoe Village while respondent’s appeal was still pending.

Respondent received a copy of the Resolution of the RTC dismissing his latter
complaint. Fourteen days thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
said resolution, which the RTC denied. After nine days from receipt of the order denying
his MR, respondent already filed his Notice of Appeal. CA gave due course to the
appeal.

Petitioners contend that the CA erred in giving due course to said appeal for being
inconsistent with Rule 41, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court which states that the
appeal shall be taken "within fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment OR final order
appealed from."; petitioner’s reckoning point being the date of notice of judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in giving due course to respondent’s appeal

RULING: No. CA validly gave due course to the appeal. The use of the disjunctive word
"or" signifies disassociation and independence of one thing from another. It should, as a
rule, be construed in the sense which it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of "or" in the
above provision supposes that the notice of appeal may be filed within 15 days from the
notice of judgment or within 15 days from notice of the "final order,"

Clearly, under the rule, respondent was able to file his appeal well-within the
prescriptive period of 15 days, taking only 9 days from the receipt of the “final order”.

The complaint of respondent Ismael Veloso III in Civil Case No. Q-02-48341 is hereby
REINSTATED, only in so far as the first cause of action is concerned.