Case Digest (G.R. No. 173942)
Facts:
Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. and Fairways and Blue-Waters Resort and Country Club, Inc. v. Hon. Marietta J. Homena-Valencia and Sullian Sy Naval, G.R. No. 173942, June 25, 2008, Special Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.In 1998, private respondent Sullian Sy Naval filed a complaint for recovery of a parcel of land against petitioners Fil‑Estate Properties, Inc. and Fairways and Blue‑Waters Resort and Country Club, Inc. Before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 1, Kalibo, Aklan), counsel for petitioners failed to attend pre‑trial and private respondent was allowed to present evidence ex parte; the RTC rendered judgment in Naval’s favor.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on May 10, 2000. The RTC denied the motion by order dated July 26, 2000. Petitioners averred they received that order on August 11, 2000; they filed a Notice of Appeal dated August 11, 2000, but the postal money orders paying the appellate docket fees were posted only on August 25, 2000, beyond the reglementary period. The RTC denied due course to the appeal and, after petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to assail the RTC’s refusal to give due course, the Court of Appeals sustained the RTC’s denial.
Petitioners initially brought a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, which this Court denied in a Decision dated October 15, 2007; petitioners thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration (filed November 19, 2007). In the Motion for Reconsideration petitioners invoked Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005 (469 SCRA 633), which had established that an appellant is granted a fresh 15‑day period, reckoned from receipt of the order denying a motion for reconsideration, within which to perfect an appeal. Petitioners asserted they had received the RTC’s denial on August 11, 2000 and that, under Neypes, their posting of the docket fees on August 25, 2000 fell within the fresh 15‑day period.
Petitioners also pointed to Sps. De los Santos v. Vda. De Mangubat, G.R. No. 149508, October 10, 2007 (535 SCRA 411), in which the Court’s Third Division held that Neypes could be given retroactive effect. Private respondent opposed retroactive application but did not cite authority countering De los Santos. The Court examined whether the Neypes “fresh period” rule, being procedural, could be retroactively applied to this pending action and whether any other procedural impediments (notably the timeliness of the special civil action for certiorari under Section 4, Rule 65 and the bar of appeals to certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65) prevented relief. The Court concluded factual issues were for the Court of Appeals to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the “fresh 15‑day period” rule announced in Neypes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 141524, Sept. 14, 2005) be retroactively applied to a case in which the period to perfect an appeal lapsed before Neypes was promulgated?
- Having applied Neypes retroactively and found that petitioners’ appeal should be given due course, should the Court annul the RTC’s decision and resolve the substantive and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)