Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 141524. September 14, 2005.
_______________
* EN BANC.
634
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
CORONA, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
636
_______________
637
with such legal requirement 8is fatal and effectively renders the
judgment final and executory.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
II
III
_______________
638
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
IV.
_______________
9 Rollo, p. 12.
10 M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Zenaida Villanueva, G.R. No.
136477, November 10, 2004, 441 SCRA 525.
11 The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
639
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
640
13
In the recent case of Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc., the
trial court declared petitioner Quelnan non-suited and
accordingly dismissed his complaint. Upon receipt of the
order of dismissal, he filed an omnibus motion to set it
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
641
_______________
15 Supra.
16 Bank of America v. Gerochi, G.R. No. 73210, 10 February 1994, 230 SCRA 9;
Dayrit v. Philippine Bank of Communications, 435 Phil. 120; 386 SCRA 117
(2002); Gallego v. Spouses Galang, G.R. No. 130228, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 275.
17 BPI Data Systems Corp. v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 324 Phil. 267; 254 SCRA 56 (1996).
18 Borre v. Court of Appeals, No. L-57204, 14 March 1988, 158 SCRA 561.
642
new trial has been pending shall be deducted, unless such motion
fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 37.
But where such motion has been filed during office hours of the
last day of the period herein provided, the appeal must be
perfected within the day following that in which19 the party
appealing received notice of the denial of said motion. (emphasis
supplied)
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
19 Appeals from the Court of First Instance (now RTC) and the Social
Security Commission to the Court of Appeals.
20 Created by virtue of Executive Order No. 611.
21 MR. MILLORA: Mr. Speaker, although I am a Member of the
committee I have been granted permission to ask questions about some
unresolved matters and I would like to begin with the period of appeal.
Under Section 39, Mr. Speaker, the period for appeal from final orders,
resolutions, awards, judgments or decisions of any court in all cases shall
be fifteen days. This is very good because it will shorten the period to
appeal. Under our rules today, the period to appeal is 30 days. x x x
(February 2, 1981, Record of the Batasan, Volume IV, p. 2004.)
22 Ramos v. Bagasao, No. L-51552, 28 February 1980, 96 SCRA 395;
Republic v. Court of Appeals, No. L-31303-04, 31 May 1978, 83 SCRA 453;
Olacao v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 81390, 29
August 1989, 177 SCRA 38.
23 No. L-27197, 28 April 1980, 97 SCRA 138.
643
_______________
644
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
dismissing a motion
30
for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration.
Henceforth, this “fresh period rule” shall also apply to
Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts
to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for
review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of 31
Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies
to the Court of Appeals
_______________
27 Petition for Review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of
Appeals.
28 Appeals from (the Court of Tax Appeals and) Quasi-Judicial Agencies
to the Court of Appeals. RA 9282 elevated the Court of Tax Appeals to the
level of a collegiate court with special jurisdiction.
29 Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court.
30 Rule 22, Section 1. How to compute time—In computing any period of
time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by
any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the
designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of
performance included x x x. (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
31 Before the effectivity of RA 9282 (AN ACT EXPANDING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS [CTA],
ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT
WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS
MEMBERSHIP) on March 30, 2004, decisions or rulings of the CTA were
appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure. With the passage of the new law, Section 19 thereof
provides that a party adversely affected by a decision or
645
and Rule
32
45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme
Court. The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal
period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order
denying the motion for new trial, motion for
reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order
or resolution.
We thus hold that petitioners seasonably filed their
notice of appeal within the fresh period of 15 days, counted
from July 22, 1998 (the date of receipt of notice denying
their motion for reconsideration). This pronouncement is
not inconsistent with Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules which
states that the appeal shall be taken within 15 days from
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Procedure.
32 As far as Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and
Prohibition) is concerned, Section 3 thereof, as amended by SC Adm.
Memo. No. 00-2-03, states that no extension of time shall be granted
except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days.
33 Katindig v. People, 74 Phil. 45 (1942) as cited in Agpalo, Statutory
Construction, 3rd Edition (1995).
646
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
_______________
647
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
10/7/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664aa2bce166feba6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15