Sumaway v. Urban Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed an action for Reformation of Contract, Specific Performance, Damages, Consignation with Injunction, with Restraining Order, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City. Procedural History: Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the RTC granted on September 12, 1995, stating that the contract of lease sought to be reformed had expired. Petitioners' counsel received the order on September 19, 1995, and filed a motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1995. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on January 30, 1996, and petitioners' counsel received this denial on April 25, 1996. Petitioners' counsel filed a Notice of Appeal on May 3, 1996, which was given due course by the RTC. The appeal was docketed with the Court of Appeals (CA) as CA-G.R. CV No. 53270. Petitioners were required to pay docket fees and submit their appellants' brief, which they did. Respondent Urban Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, contending that the notice of appeal was filed five days late, as it should have been filed on April 28, 1997, not May 3, 1997. The CA granted the motion to dismiss in a Resolution dated September 17, 1999, and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 17, 2000. The Petition: The present petition for review on certiorari questions whether the CA erred in dismissing the appeal for having been filed out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for having been filed out of time. Whether the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in a manner not in accordance with applicable Supreme Court decisions, and whether the 'fresh period rule' applies retroactively. Whether petitioners have a strong and meritorious case.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated September 17, 1999 and March 17, 2000 rendered by the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The records of this case are remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the timeliness of the appeal: The Court held that while jurisprudence is consistent in ruling that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to do so renders the judgment final and executory, the Court has, in exceptional circumstances, allowed belated notices of appeal. In the present case, the Court found that the appeal was filed on May 3, 1996. At that time, Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (B.P. 129) provided a 15-day period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decisions. Section 20 of the Implementing Rules and Guidelines of B.P. 129 stipulated that an appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or order appealed from. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, also provides for a 15-day period for ordinary appeal, which is interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. The Court noted that the respondent Urban Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground that the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period, contending the notice of appeal was filed five days late. The CA granted this motion. On whether the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in a manner not in accordance with applicable Supreme Court decisions and the retroactive application of the 'fresh period rule': The Supreme Court, in the precedent-setting case of Neypes v. Court of Appeals, categorically set a fresh period of 15 days from the denial of a motion for reconsideration within which to appeal. This "fresh period rule" applies to appeals from the RTC to the CA. The Court reiterated that the denial of the motion for reconsideration constitutes the final order that disposes of the issues. This fresh 15-day period may be applied retroactively to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its promulgation, as rules of procedure may be given retroactive effect without violating vested rights. Therefore, the appeal before the CA should be deemed as timely filed. There was no ratio provided for the issue of whether petitioners have a strong and meritorious case.
Main Doctrine
A fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal is granted from the receipt of the order denying a motion for reconsideration, as established in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, and this rule may be applied retroactively to pending cases.