Heirs of De la Rosa v. Calderon-Bargas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a forcible entry action filed by the heirs of Sesinando Millare and others against the heirs of Cristeta de la Rosa. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tanay, Rizal, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants had illegally entered the parcel of land in question. The MTC ordered the defendants to vacate the premises and surrender possession, and also awarded attorney's fees and costs of suit to the plaintiffs. Procedural History: The defendants, now petitioners, filed a Notice of Appeal from the MTC decision. The MTC transmitted the records to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal. Subsequently, the private respondents (plaintiffs below) filed a Motion for Dismissal of Appeal, alleging that the petitioners had failed to file their memorandum within the prescribed period. The RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file the required memorandum. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied, and the RTC amended its order to explicitly dismiss the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction due to the failure to furnish them with the Notice of Appealed Case. The CA denied the petition, affirming the RTC's dismissal and holding that the failure to comply with certain procedural rules was not jurisdictional. The CA further stated that an appeal is perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking a review on certiorari of the CA's decision and resolution. They contend that the CA erred in its interpretation of Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 40 of the Revised Rules of Court, arguing that compliance with these provisions, specifically the furnishing of a notice of the appealed case, is mandatory for the appellate court to acquire jurisdiction. They claim that the failure of the clerks of court to provide them with the necessary notices constituted a violation of due process and led to their inability to file their memorandum on time. Additionally, they question the validity of the private respondents' motion for dismissal of appeal for not specifying the date and time of hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioners' Petition and Motion for Reconsideration based on its interpretation of Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the reckoning point for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC-Morong's dismissal of petitioners' appeal based on the validity of the motion for dismissal of appeal, specifically concerning compliance with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The ruling of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue regarding the interpretation of Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 40: The Court held that petitioners were mistaken in believing that receipt of the letter of transmittal and notice of appealed case was the reckoning point for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction. According to Section 9, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, an appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to the appellant upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over the appeal when petitioners filed their notice of appeal on October 5, 1998. The filing of the notice of appeal and payment of fees perfected the appeal, divesting the MTC of jurisdiction. The alleged failure of the clerks of court to furnish copies of the transmittal letter and notice of appealed case, which supposedly led to the failure to file the memorandum on time, could no longer be reviewed as the findings of fact of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are considered final and conclusive. On the second issue regarding the validity of the motion for dismissal of appeal: The Court found that private respondents substantially complied with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court. The motion contained the required notice of hearing, and the specific date and time were left to the court's discretion, which is permissible for litigated motions. The crucial aspect was that petitioners were properly apprised of the motion's filing. The obligation to schedule the hearing rested on the trial court, not the movant. Therefore, the motion for dismissal was not defective.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal upon the filing of a notice of appeal in due time vests the appellate court with jurisdiction, and the failure of the clerks of court to furnish parties with notices of transmittal or receipt of records does not divest the appellate court of jurisdiction nor violate due process, as the duty to prosecute the appeal rests with the appellant.