G.R. No. 162518 - Sumiran vs. Spouses Damaso

Petitioner, Rodrigo Sumiran, filed a civil complaint for sum of money and damages with a prayer for preliminary attachment against respondents Generoso Damaso and Eva Damaso before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 73 (Civil Case No. 93-2588).
Petitioner was also the private complainant in two criminal cases (Criminal Case Nos. 92-8157 and 92-8158) for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, with respondent Generoso Damaso as the accused.

Upon motion of respondents, the criminal and civil cases were consolidated and jointly tried by the RTC.
On February 21, 2003, the RTC promulgated its decision (dated January 16, 2003) acquitting Generoso Damaso of the criminal charges for insufficiency of evidence.
For the civil case, judgment was rendered against petitioner in favor of respondents, ordering petitioner to pay moral damages (P50,000), exemplary damages (P20,000), and costs of suit.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on March 6, 2003, indicating he only received a duplicate original copy of the decision on February 21, 2003.
The respondents opposed the motion; the RTC denied the motion on May 9, 2003.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 28, 2003, claiming he received the decision only on March 8, 2003, and the denial of his motion on May 19, 2003.
The RTC denied the notice of appeal for being filed out of time, ruling that petitioner received the decision when promulgated on February 21, 2003, and thus had already missed the appeal period after filing his motion for reconsideration belatedly.
Petitioner filed another motion for reconsideration on June 20, 2003, which was denied on October 1, 2003.

Petitioner elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari.
The CA dismissed the petition in its Decision dated December 22, 2003, holding that petitioner was bound by his judicial admission of receiving the decision on February 21, 2003, and thus the appeal period had lapsed.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was denied on February 20, 2004.

Petitioner asserted that the CA erred in ruling that the appeal period had lapsed, claiming this was based on misapprehension of facts and conflicting evidence.
Petitioner also contended that the CA failed to specify the particular evidence upon which it relied and neglected facts that could have led to a different conclusion.

Whether petitioner's notice of appeal was filed within the proper period allowed by law given the receipt of the RTC’s decision and the Order denying the motion for reconsideration.

Whether the "fresh period rule" allowing a new 15-day appeal period from receipt of the denial of a motion for reconsideration applies retroactively to this case.

Whether the Court of Appeals and RTC erred in denying petitioner due course of his notice of appeal.