Baniqued v. Ramos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Teresita S. Ramos filed a complaint against Spouses Fortunata V. Baniqued and Teofilo Baniqued for the annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. The petitioners failed to file an answer despite extensions, leading to their declaration in default. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 31, rendered a decision on May 25, 1998, in favor of Ramos, declaring the TCT null and void and ordering the cancellation thereof, among other reliefs. Procedural History: The petitioners received the RTC decision on June 5, 1998. On June 23, 1998, they filed a Motion for New Trial. While this motion was pending, on July 27, 1998, they filed a "Manifestation and Notice of Appeal" ex abundantia cautelam, stating they were appealing the decision and any adverse order. The RTC denied the Motion for New Trial on September 22, 1999. Subsequently, on November 15, 1999, the petitioners filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion to elevate the records to the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming they had paid the docket fees. Respondent Ramos opposed this, moving for a writ of execution. On April 30, 2001, the RTC denied the petitioners' motion to elevate the records and granted the writ of execution, ruling that the notice of appeal filed while the motion for new trial was pending was premature and inefficacious. The petitioners then filed a petition for nullification of the RTC resolution and for mandamus with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition on January 20, 2003, finding the notice of appeal premature. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration on May 30, 2003. The Petition: The petitioners seek to set aside the CA decision, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing their petition and denying reconsideration, claiming the CA violated rulings of the Supreme Court by resorting to technicalities and rigid application of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners perfected their appeal from the RTC decision to the CA within the period and in the manner provided for by the Rules of Court. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioners' motion to elevate the records to the CA.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 65631 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the perfection of appeal: The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory remedy that must be exercised strictly in accordance with the Rules of Court. Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment and serving a copy upon the adverse party within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment. This period is interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. In this case, the petitioners received the RTC decision on June 5, 1998. They filed a motion for new trial on June 23, 1998. However, before the trial court could resolve the motion for new trial, they filed a "Manifestation and Notice of Appeal" on July 27, 1998. This notice of appeal was filed prematurely and ex abundantia cautelam, in anticipation of an adverse ruling on their motion for new trial, and without paying the requisite docket and other lawful fees. The proper time to perfect their appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the fees would have been after the denial of their motion for new trial on September 22, 1999. Instead, they filed an Ex Parte Motion to elevate the records on November 15, 1999, failing to comply with the mandatory requirements for perfecting an appeal. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The clerk of court is bound to elevate the records to the CA only if the appellants have perfected their appeal as required by the Rules of Court. Since the petitioners failed to perfect their appeal by not filing a proper notice of appeal and paying the docket fees within the reglementary period after the denial of their motion for new trial, the RTC correctly denied their motion to elevate the records. The Court emphasized that the requirements of the rules on appeal are not mere technicalities but are essential for the orderly disposition of cases and the acquisition of vested rights by the winning party upon the finality of a judgment. The petitioners' reliance on Caltex (Philippines) Incorporated v. Intermediate Appellate Court was found misplaced as the issue in that case pertained to the prospective application of a rule on extensions of time, which is different from the procedural requirements for perfecting an appeal in this case.
Main Doctrine
The right to appeal is a statutory procedural remedy that must be exercised strictly in accordance with the rules. Failure to comply with the requirements for the perfection of an appeal, such as filing the notice of appeal and paying the docket fees within the reglementary period, renders the appeal dismissible and the judgment final and executory.