Bautista v. Doniego
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners (Bautista, et al.) filed a forcible entry complaint against respondents (Doniego, Jr., et al.) before the MTCC of Palayan City, alleging respondents, with soldiers' help, entered the land petitioners had occupied for over ten years using stealth, strategy, force, threat, and intimidation. Respondents denied this, claiming petitioners surreptitiously entered the land, which they asserted was part of the Fort Magsaysay Military Reservation since December 19, 1955, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 237, s. 1955. Procedural History: The MTCC ruled for petitioners, finding them in prior possession and that the land was segregated from the military reservation by Presidential Proclamation No. 1033, s. 2006. Respondents appealed to the RTC, which reversed the MTCC Decision, finding respondents lawful possessors and ordering petitioners to vacate. Petitioners filed a Motion for Extension to File a Petition for Review with the CA, citing counsel's illness, and subsequently a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Decision. The RTC initially deemed the Motion for Reconsideration abandoned due to the Motion for Extension but later clarified the Motion for Reconsideration superseded the Motion for Extension and denied it. Respondents then filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution, which the RTC granted. Meanwhile, the CA, in a Resolution dated March 9, 2015, denied the Motion for Extension for failure to pay docket fees and ordered it expunged. On March 31, 2015, petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the CA, paying docket fees, assailing the RTC Decision and Order denying reconsideration, and also filed an Urgent Motion for TRO/Writ of Preliminary Injunction and an Omnibus Motion for Clarification. On June 16, 2015, the CA issued a Resolution noting without action the Petition for Review and subsequent pleadings, in connection with its earlier Resolution denying the Motion for Extension. The Petition: Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's Resolution for merely noting without action their Petition for Review and other pleadings, thereby denying them due course.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in merely noting without action the Petition for Review and other subsequent pleadings filed by the petitioners. Whether the Court of Appeals acquired appellate jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious. The Court of Appeals is directed to reinstate and re-docket the Petition for Review filed before it by Julius Bautista, et al.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in merely noting without action the Petition for Review and other subsequent pleadings: The Court ruled that the CA committed reversible error. The CA's action of noting without action the Petition for Review and subsequent pleadings was based on its earlier Resolution denying the Motion for Extension filed by J. Bautista and consequently expunging it from the records. However, the Petition for Review subsequently filed by Bautista, et al., which was originally docketed as CA-G.R. 139764, was a new and distinct pleading. This petition was filed with the payment of docket and other lawful fees and assailed both the RTC Decision and the Order denying their Motion for Reconsideration. The CA should not have re-assigned the docket number of the expunged motion to this properly filed petition. The CA's failure to act on the Petition for Review, which was properly filed and paid for, constituted reversible error. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals acquired appellate jurisdiction over the case: The Court clarified that appellate jurisdiction did not attach with the filing of J. Bautista's Motion for Extension in CA-G.R. SP No. 139159-UDK. This was because it was merely a motion for extension and not a proper Petition for Review, and crucially, there was no payment of the required docket fees. Furthermore, there was no evidence that J. Bautista was authorized to file the motion on behalf of all petitioners. However, the Court found that appellate jurisdiction was acquired with respect to the Petition for Review subsequently filed by Bautista, et al., originally docketed as CA-G.R. 139764. This petition was filed within the fifteen (15) day period after receipt of the Order denying their Motion for Reconsideration, and it was accompanied by the payment of the prescribed docket and other lawful fees. Therefore, the CA had acquired appellate jurisdiction over the case when this Petition for Review was filed.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals commits reversible error in merely noting without action a Petition for Review and subsequent pleadings when the said petition was properly filed and the CA had acquired appellate jurisdiction over the case, especially when the petition was a new and distinct pleading from a previously expunged motion for extension.