KARYL ANN J.

AQUINO, JD-2
CASE DIGEST ON CIVPRO2

1. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and TRADERS ROYAL BANK
G.R. No. 129846 January 18, 2000
MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:

On October 13, 1987, petitioner, through the Bureau of Treasury, filed civil case for collection against
private respondent before the Regional Trial Court because of forged endorsement on treasury
warrants. Trial then ensued. Petitioner received the order of dismissal on February 7, 1995. Hence, it
had up to February 22, 1995 within which to appeal.On February 20, 1995, two days before the last
day to file an appeal, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal which
interrupted the running of the period of appeal.

On May 23, 1995, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The order was
received by petitioner on June 2, 1995. However, petitioner filed its notice of appeal only on June 16,
1995, 12 days beyond the 15-day reglementary period. As a consequence, the dismissal became final.

The case was elevated to CA.Private respondent asked for an extension of time. Its motion was
granted, but instead of filing its brief, private respondent asked the appellate court to dismiss
petitioner's appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. Its motion was granted and petitioner's
appeal was dismissed. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but its motion was denied.
Petitioner received the appellate court's resolution denying its motion on June 5, 1997, so that it had
until June 20, 1997 within which to appeal to this Court by filing a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45. Instead, petitioner filed 45 days after the last day to file an appeal, the
present petition for certiorari under Rule 65, contending that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its
discretion in dismissing its appeal from the order of the RTC which dismissed its complaint against
private respondent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appeal was filed on time?

RULING .:

NO. Petitioner's remedy was to appeal to this Court from the resolutions, dated March 17, 1997 and
May 20, 1997, of the appellate court by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Instead, it filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 only on August 4, 1997. Apparently,
petitioner resorted to this special civil action because it had failed to take an appeal within the 15-day
reglementary period which expired on June 20, 1997. The special civil action of certiorari cannot be
used as a substitute for an appeal which petitioner has lost.

Failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a
jurisdictional problem as it deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal It did not only
fail to appeal on time from the order denying reconsideration. Petitioner likewise failed to make a
timely appeal to this Court from the resolution of the appellate court dismissing its appeal.The
petition is DISMISSED.
 KARYL ANN J. AQUINO, JD-2
CASE DIGEST ON CIVPRO2

2. SPOUSES ELBE LEBIN and ERLINDA LEBIN

vs.
VILMA S. MIRASOL, and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO, BRANCH XXVII
G.R. No. 164255 ,September 7, 2011
BERSAMIN, J.:

DOCTRINE:The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is
mandatory and jurisdictional.

FACTS:

Petitioners offered to the administrator of the Estate of L.J. Hodges to purchase Lot 18,an asset of
the Estate situated on D.B. Ledesma Interior, Jaro, Iloilo City. On August 28, 1985, the RTC granted
the administrator’s motion for approval of the offer.

Meanwhile, respondent Vilma S. Mirasol (Mirasol) also offered to purchase the lot containing an
area of 188 square meters where her house stood which turned out to be also Lot 18. Learning on the
approval of the petitioners’ offer to purchase Lot 18, therefore, Mirasol filed a petition for relief from
the order .

On May 3, 1995, the RTC resolved the petition for relief in favor of Mirasol.On May 23, 1995, the
petitioners moved for reconsideration and/or new trial but was denied. Thus, on March 27, 1998, the
petitioners filed a notice of appeal in the RTC.Allegedly, on May 5, 1998, they also filed a record on
appeal. On January 25, 1999, they presented an ex parte motion to approve the record on appeal.On
June 15, 2000, Mirasol filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, insisting that the record on appeal had
been filed late.The RTC granted the motion to dismiss the appeal on February 1, 2002. The
petitioners moved for reconsideration on March 13,

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for their failure to timely file a
record on appeal?

RULING:

NO.Undoubtedly, they filed the record on appeal 43 days from March 23, 1998, the date they
received the denial of their motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. They should have filed the
record on appeal within 30 days from their notice of the judgment. Their appeal was not perfected,
therefore, because their filing of the record on appeal happened beyond the end of their period for
the perfection of their appeal.

The period to appeal started to run from May 15, 1995, the date they received the order of May 3,
1995. They filed their motion for reconsideration on May 24, 1995. By then, nine days out of their 30-
day period to appeal already elapsed. They received a copy of the order dated March 2, 1998 on
March 23, 1998. Thus, the period to appeal resumed from March 23, 1998 and ended 21 days later,
or on April 13, 1998. Yet, they filed their record on appeal only on May 5, 1998, or 22 days beyond the
end of their reglementary period. Although, by that time, the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure had
meanwhile taken effect (July 1, 1997), their period of appeal remained 30 days. It is stressed that
under the 1997 revisions, the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration interrupted the running
of the period of appeal, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
 KARYL ANN J. AQUINO, JD-2
CASE DIGEST ON CIVPRO2

3. ELIZABETH BRUAL, PETITIONER,

VS.
JORGE BRUAL CONTRERAS, LOURDES BRUAL-NAZARIO, ERLINDA BRUAL-BINAY,
RODOLFO BRUAL, RENATO BRUAL, VIOLETA BRUAL, DAVID DE JESUS AND
ANTONIO DE JESUS, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 205451. March 07, 2022
HERNANDO, J.

FACTS:

On July 22, 2009 Elizabeth, as instituted heir and her co-executor, filed before the RTC a petition
for probate of the last will and testament of the late Fausta. The special proceedings ensued.
However, respondents, as nephews and nieces of Fausta, filed a manifestation and motion for
intervention and supplemental allegations before the probate court.

On November 4, 2010, the RTC issued an Order/Resolution denying the respondents' motion for
intervention and supplemental allegation. Respondents then filed their motion for reconsideration
but it was denied by the RTC in its January 14, 2011 Order.

Hence, on February 3, 2011, the respondents filed their notice of appeal of the November 4, 2010
Resolution/Order and January 14, 2011 Order. On April 27, 2011, the RTC issued an Order
dismissing respondents' appeal due to their failure to file a record on appeal pursuant to Sections 2
and 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

The CA granted respondents' petition and reversed and set aside the RTC's dismissal of respondents'
appeal. Elizabeth filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its January 16,
2013 Resolution. Hence, this instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court of appeals erred when it gave due course to the petition of the respondents
despite knowing that the appeal was not perfected and had lapsed in finality?

RULING:

YES. When respondents received the final order denying their motion for reconsideration on
January 24, 2011,the period to appeal, applying the fresh period rule, resumed and they had 30 days
thereafter or until February 23, 2011 to perfect their appeal in accordance with the rules. Verily,
respondents filed their notice of appeal on February 3, 2011 without a record on appeal.Thus, on
April 27, 2011, the RTC dismissed the notice of appeal due to its non-perfection and failure to file the
required record on appeal. It was only on June 27, 2011 that respondents filed their omnibus motion
for reconsideration with motion to admit record on appeal while claiming inadvertence and lack of
knowledge on the timing of the filing of the record on appeal.

Considering that the petitioner did not submit a record on appeal in accordance with Section 3 of
Rule 41, he did not perfect his appeal of the judgment dismissing his intervention. As a result, the
dismissal became final and immutable. The right to appeal, being statutory in nature, required strict
compliance with the rules regulating the exercise of the right. As such, his perfection of his appeal
within the prescribed period was mandatory and jurisdictional, and his failure to perfect the appeal
within the prescribed time rendered the judgment final and beyond review on appeal.
KARYL ANN J. AQUINO, JD-2
CASE DIGEST ON CIVPRO2

4. JOSE "PEPE" SANICO

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND JENNIFER SON-TENIO
G.R. No. 198753
BERSAMIN, J

FACTS:

The petitioner and Marsito Batiquin were criminally charged for and theft of in MCTC of Catmon-
Carmen- Sogod, Cebu (MCTC). In due course, the MCTC rendered its judgment on April 2, 2009,
convicting the accused.

On April 22, 2009, Sanico’s counsel filed a notice of appeal in the MCTC.Consequently, on January 5,
2010, the RTC, Branch 25, in Danao City ordered Sanico to file his memorandum on appeal. Sanico
did not comply; hence, the RTC ruled that the failure of the accused-appellants to file Memorandum
on Appeal is a ground for dismissal of the Appeal.

On April 26, 2010, one Atty. Dennis Cañete, another lawyer acting for Sanico, filed a motion for
reconsideration vis-à-vis the dismissal of the appeal, stating that Sanico had not filed the
memorandum on appeal because he had been beset with problems due to his wife’s debilitating
illness which eventually claimed her life, as well as his counsel, Atty. Baring’s own medical condition
which caused her to forget how she got this case and whom to contact as principal counsel hereof.

On June 1, 2010, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. On June 23, 2010, Sanico, through
Atty. Cañete, filed a petition for review in the CA,which the CA denied the petition for review.

The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied on September 15, 2011.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appeal on the criminal case was filed on time?

RULING:

YES.RTC was guilty of the prejudicial error of misapplying the Rules of Court in its dismissal of the
appeal timely made by the petitioner The failure to file the memorandum on appeal is a ground for
the RTC to dismiss the appeal only in civil cases. The same rule does not apply in criminal cases,
because Section 9(c), supra, imposes on the RTC the duty to decide the appeal "on the basis of the
entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed" upon the
submission of the appellate memoranda or briefs, or upon the expiration of the period to file the
same. Hence, the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal cannot be properly premised on the failure to
file the memorandum on appeal.

Having timely perfected his appeal by filing the notice of appeal in the MCTC, the petitioner was
entitled to expect that the RTC would resolve his appeal in due course, whether he filed his
memorandum on appeal or not. The unwarranted dismissal of the appeal by the RTC was, therefore,
an outright denial of due process to him in a manner that occasioned severe prejudice because his
conviction was not reviewed despite his first-time appeal being a matter of right, and because his
conviction was then declared to have attained finality, causing the execution of the decision as to its
civil aspect.
 KARYL ANN J. AQUINO, JD-2
CASE DIGEST ON CIVPRO2

5. HEIRS OF ARTURO GARCIA I, (IN SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS OF MELECIO

BUENO)
vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF IBA, ZAMBALES
G.R. No. 162217 ,July 22, 2015
BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS:

On October 18, 1999, Melecio R. Bueno brought an ejectment suit in the MTC of Iba against the
Municipality of Iba, Province of Zambales,claiming that in 1983, the Municipality of Iba had
constructed the public market on a substantial portion of his land without his consent; and that his
repeated demands for the Municipality of Iba to vacate the property had remained unheeded.

After due proceedings, the MTC ruled in favor of Bueno. Hence, the Municipality of Iba filed its
notice of appeal, but the MTC denied due course to the notice of appeal. Thus, the Municipality of
Iba filed its petition for certiorari in the R TC and was granted. The petitioners, who meanwhile
substituted Bueno upon his death, moved for the reconsideration of the judgment granting the
petition for certiorari, but the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration.

Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the CA by petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of
Court but was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA did err in denying due course to the petition for review?

RULING:

NO. It has been expressly stated in Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court since July 1, 1997, to wit:
Section 2.Modes of appeal:(a) Ordinary appeal, (b) Petition for review and (c) Appeal by
certiorari.Pursuant to this rule, in conjunction with Section 3 and Section 4 of Rule 41, the
petitioners should have filed a notice of appeal in the RTC within the period of 15 days from their
notice of the judgment of the RTC, and within the same period should have paid to the clerk of the
RTC the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. The compliance with these
requirements was the only way by which they could have perfected their appeal from the adverse
judgment of the RTC.

In contrast, an appeal filed under Rule 42 is deemed perfected as to the petitioner upon the timely
filing of the petition for review before the CA, while the RTC shall lose jurisdiction upon perfection
thereof and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. The appeal by notice of appeal
under Rule 41 is a matter or right, but the appeal by petition for review under Rule 42 is a matter of
discretion. Verily, the CA has the discretion whether to due course to the petition for review or not.
As borne out in the foregoing, the petitioners' resort to the petition for review under Rule 42 was
wrong. Hence, the CA did not err in denying due course to the petition for review.

Indeed, any liberality in the application of the rules of procedure may be properly invoked only in
cases of some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but definitely not in cases like now
where a liberal application would directly subvert the essence of the proceedings or results in the
utter disregard of the Rules of Court.