OPINI StS Republika ng rae ION NO. $520.22 KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN Department of Justice Manila Executive Commissioner MELZAR P. GALICIA, AUG 31 202: Commissioner FIDEL J. EXCONDE, JR., 312003 Commissioner SERGIO E. YAP I, Commissioner MICHAEL P. CLORIBEL, and Commissioner JOHN-CHRISTOPHER T. MAHAMUD Human Settlements and Adjudication Commission HLURB Building, Kalayaan Ave. cor. Mayaman Street Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Dear Executive Commissioner Galicia, et al.: This has reference to your request for opinion on the proper interpretation of Sections 15 and 18 of Republic Act (RA) No. 11201, otherwise known as the “Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development Act,” in order to guide litigants and the Human Settlements and Adjudication Commission (‘Commission’) in the enforcement of its decisions. Sections 15 and 18 of RA No. 11201, read as follows: Section 15. Jurisdiction of the Commission. - The Commission shall have the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over: (a) All cases decided by the Regional Adjudicators; and (b) Appeals from decisions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies. The decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. KKK 20K Section 18. Appeals. - Decisions, awards or orders of the Regional Adjudicators shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders. The decision of the Commission upon any disputed matter may be brought upon to the Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. (Emphases supplied) Section 18 makes reference to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, Section 12 of which provides as follows:OPINION NO, _3%__§72023 Section 12. Effect of appeal. — The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just. (Emphases supplied) You stated in your request that there seems to be a conflict between the two aforementioned provisions and in this regard, you presented the following issue for ‘our consideration: Whether the decisions of the Commission En Banc become immediately final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties, regardless of whether an appeal is fled with the Court of Appeals (CA), in the absence of a stay order from the court. We opine that there is no conflict between Sections 15 and 18 of RA No. 11201 Reading the two provisions together, in relation to Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, it is clear that the decisions of the Commission En Banc become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) calendar days from the receipt thereof by the parties, in the absence of a stay order from the CA. Reading the three above-quoted provisions together, it is clear that: (a) the decisions of the Commission may be brought to the CA, in accordance with Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, (b) pending appeal, the decisions of the Commission are not stayed, unless the CA issues a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, and (0) since the decisions of the Commission are not stayed in the absence of a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction from the CA, said decisions become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties, Unlike in ordinary cases where the appeal shall stay the judgment or final order unless the CA, the law or the Rules of Court shall provide otherwise," RA No. 11201 specifically provides that decisions of the Commission become final and executory after fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties even on appeal to the CA unless the appellate court provides otherwise. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. The statute must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. It may be noted that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.* This being so, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. * Section 8, Rule 42, Rules of Court. 2 Plain Meaning Rule. Bolos v. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, 20 October 2010, citing Amores v. House of Representative Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189600, 29 June 2010 and Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, 23 July 2008. 3 Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr, G.R. No. 172829, 18 July 2012 2OPINION NO. —34_.S7 2022 If the Rules provide that the decisions are not stayed pending appeal, in the absence of a stay order by the CA, the appealing party is bound by such Rules. Please be guided accordingly. Very, Department of Justice CN: 0202308222 UA