G.R. No. 131094 - Ferdez vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131094)

Procedural History (chronological)

MeTC, Branch XV, dismissed Olivares’s Complaint.
Olivares appealed to the RTC, which reversed the MeTC and ordered Fernandez to pay rental arrearages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs in a decision dated 2 May 1994.
Fernandez received the RTC decision on 28 June 1994 and filed a motion for reconsideration on 12 July 1994. The RTC denied that motion; Fernandez received the denial on 29 November 1994.
On 1 December 1994 Fernandez filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review (resolution granting extension received by Fernandez on 12 December 1994).
On 9 December 1994 Fernandez filed a Motion for New Trial in the RTC, alleging newly discovered evidence. On 29 December 1994 he moved to withdraw his petition for review with the CA (the CA noted the withdrawal on 19 January 1995).
The RTC denied the motion for new trial on 6 February 1995, concluding the CA had already acquired jurisdiction when it granted the extension. The RTC denied reconsideration of that denial (order dated 14 December 1995), and on 30 January 1996 the RTC granted execution of its decision; writ of execution issued 31 January 1996.
Fernandez filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with injunction before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 39655); the CA temporarily restrained execution on 14 February 1996. The CA later denied Fernandez’s petition in a decision dated 16 May 1997; a motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on 13 October 1997. Fernandez then filed the present petition to the Supreme Court.

Single Issue Presented

Whether the mere filing by petitioner of a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review (an intention later withdrawn) automatically divested the RTC of jurisdiction to entertain a timely Motion for New Trial.

Legal Principles on Jurisdiction (as applied by the Court)

A court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter (conferred by law) and jurisdiction over the person (by service or voluntary appearance). Voluntary filing of motions seeking affirmative relief is ordinarily a submission to the court’s jurisdiction over the person.
Additional conditions are required for jurisdiction in the appellate context: (1) the petitioner must invoke CA jurisdiction within the prescribed time; (2) the petition for review must be filed within the prescribed time; (3) necessary docket fees must be paid; and (4) other parties must have perfected their appeals in due time. Perfection of a petition for review occurs upon the timely filing of the petition and payment of docket and other lawful fees.
Rule 42, Section 8(a), third paragraph (Rules of Court) recognizes that the RTC loses jurisdiction upon perfection of appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of other parties; but before the CA gives due course to the petition, the RTC retains residual powers specifically enumerated.

Whether the Court of Appeals Acquired Jurisdiction by the Motion for Extension

The Court concluded that filing a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review, standing alone, does not equate to perfection of an appeal because a petition was not filed and docket fees were not paid. Therefore, the CA had not acquired jurisdiction to the extent that it would strip the RTC of its power to rule on a motion for new trial. The Court acknowledged the doctrine that a party’s motion may constitute voluntary appearance and submission to jurisdiction, but emphasized that in appellate practice the petition and payment of fees are critical to perfection.

RTC Residual Jurisdiction and Stage of Proceedings

Rule 42’s residual jurisdiction list (orders for preservation of rights not involving matters litigated on appeal, approval of compromises, permitting indigent appeals, ordering execution pending appeal, and allowing withdrawal of the appeal) applies at a stage after appeals are perfected or records approved but before transmittal. Because no petition for review had been filed and no appeal was perfected or records transmitted in this case, the matter had not reached the residual-jurisdiction stage; accordingly, the RTC retained its pre-existing jurisdiction to act on matters such as a motion for new trial.

Court’s Pivot to the Timeliness Issue: Period to File Motion for New Trial

The Court identified the decisive issue as the proper computation of the period to file a motion for new trial. Under Rule 37, Section 1 and Rule 41, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court: (a) a motion for new trial must be filed within the period for taking an appeal (fifteen days from notice of judgment or final order); and (b) the filing of a motion for new trial interrupts the running of the period of appeal but does not extend it. The Court applied these rules to the case’s timeline: Fernandez received the RTC decision on 28 June 1994; he filed a motion for reconsideration on 12 July 1994 (the 14th day). The RTC denied that motion and Fernandez received the denial on 29 November 1994. Only one day remained of the fifteen-day appeal period—1 December 1994—because the fifteen-day period runs from receipt of the denial and cannot be extended.

Application to Fernandez’s Filings and the Non-extendibility Rule

Fernandez filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on 1 December 1994 instead of filing a motion for new trial within the remaining one-day period. He filed a motion for new trial only on 9 December 1994. The Court held that the motion for new trial was therefo

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 131094)

Facts and Nature of the Case

A Complaint for unlawful detainer dated 23 January 1993 was filed by private respondent Concepcion Olivares against petitioner Atty. Jesus F. Fernandez, docketed as Civil Case No. 140953.
The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC), Branch XV, dismissed the Complaint for lack of sufficient cause of action.
Olivares appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 46, which, in a decision dated 02 May 1994, reversed the MeTC and ordered Fernandez to pay rental arrearages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs.
Fernandez received a copy of the RTC decision on 28 June 1994.

Procedural Chronology — Post-RTC Decision

12 July 1994 (fourteen days after receipt of decision): Fernandez filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC.
29 November 1994: Fernandez received an order denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
01 December 1994: Fernandez filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review; the Court of Appeals granted the motion.
12 December 1994: The resolution of the Court of Appeals granting the extension was received by Fernandez.
09 December 1994: Fernandez filed a Motion for New Trial before the RTC (docketed as Civil Case No. 93-67034), citing newly discovered evidence (receipts proving his rental payments).
29 December 1994: Through counsel, Fernandez filed in the Court of Appeals a Motion to Withdraw his Petition for Review; the Court of Appeals noted the motion in a resolution dated 19 January 1995.
06 February 1995: The RTC denied Fernandez’s Motion for New Trial, explaining that the Court of Appeals had already acquired jurisdiction when Fernandez filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review and when the Court of Appeals granted that extension.
14 December 1995: The trial court denied Fernandez’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of new trial.
Fernandez filed a further Motion to Reconsider the RTC Order while Olivares moved for execution of the RTC judgment citing Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
30 January 1996: The RTC granted the Motion for Execution and denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
31 January 1996: A writ of execution was issued by the RTC.
Fernandez filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 39655.
14 February 1996: The Court of Appeals temporarily restrained respondents from proceeding with enforcement of the writ of execution “so as not to render the petition moot and ineffectual pending fuller consideration thereof, as well as for the preservation of the rights of the parties.”
16 May 1997: The Court of Appeals denied Fernandez’s Petition and affirmed the RTC’s position, reasoning that Fernandez’s filing of a motion for extension to file petition for review amounted to an election to appeal to the Court of Appeals and that the RTC’s denial of the motion for new trial was proper because the Court of Appeals had acquired appellate jurisdiction.
13 October 1997: The Court of Appeals denied Fernandez’s Motion for Reconsideration of its decision.
Fernandez then filed the present petition to the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether or not the mere filing by petitioner of a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review (which intention was later withdrawn) automatically divested the Regional Trial Court of its jurisdiction over the case so as to preclude the RTC from entertaining a Motion for New Trial.

Jurisdictional Principles and Rules Quoted by the Court

For a court to dispose of a case on the merits it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law; jurisdiction over the person is acquired by service of summons or by voluntary appearance.
Filing a motion seeking affirmative relief (e.g., motion for extension of time) is ordinarily considered a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court where filed; an appearance without objecting to jurisdiction is a submission to that court’s jurisdiction over the person.
Additional rules for appellate jurisdiction attachment (in appellate courts):
- (1) The petitioner must have invoked the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals within the time for doing so.
- (2) The petitioner must have filed his petition for review likewise within the time for doing so.
- (3) The petitioner must have paid the necessary docket fees.
- (4) The other parties must have perfected their appeals in due time.
Rule 42, Section 8(a) (3rd paragraph) of the Rules of Court (as quoted): upon timely filing of a petition for review and payment of corresponding docket and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed perfected as to the petitioner; the RTC loses jurisdiction over the case upon perfection of appeals filed in due time and expiration of time to appeal of other parties; but before the Court of Appeals gives due course to the petition, the RTC may still issue certain orders for protection and preservation of rights (enumerated).
Rule 37, Section 1 and Rule 41, Section 3 provisions cited in connection with the period to file a motion for new trial and interruption of the period for appeal.

Court’s Analysis — Whether Court of Appeals Acquired Jurisdiction by Filing of Motion for Extension

The Court acknowledged the rule that filing a motion for extension to file a petition for review may be considered a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals with respect to the person.
The Court emphasized that, for appellate jurisdiction to attach in the Court of Appeals, filing the motion for extension alone is not necessarily sufficient because perfection of appeal requires filing of the petition and payment of docket fees within the prescribed period.
The Court observed that Fernandez had filed only a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, but had not yet filed the petition itself within the reglementar