THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 206941, March 09, 2016
MILAGROSA JOCSON, Petitioner, v. NELSON SAN MIGUEL, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision2 dated October 29, 2012 and Resolution3 dated April 16, 2013 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 122007, which allowed the application of the "fresh-period rule" in the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:San Miguel filed a Motion for Reconsideration14 (MR) dated February 10, 2011 but it was denied in an Order15 dated May 31, 2011.
1. TERMINATING the existing leasehold contract of the parties as well as their tenancy relationship;
2. ORDERING [San Miguel] and all persons claiming rights under him to peacefully vacate and surrender the land to [Jocson];
3. DISMISSING all other claims for want of evidence.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The "fresh period rule" is a procedural law as it prescribes a fresh period of 15 days within which an appeal may be made in the event that the motion for reconsideration is denied by the lower court. Following the rule on retroactivity of procedural laws, the "fresh period rule" should be applied to pending actions, such as the case at bar. The raison d'etre for the "fresh period rule" is to standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules of Court and do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should be counted. Thus, the 15-day period to appeal is no longer interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Litigants today need not concern themselves with counting the balance of the 15-day period to appeal since the 15-day period is now counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration or any final order or resolution.30 (Citation omitted and emphasis in the original)Jocson filed her MR but it was denied in a Resolution31 dated April 16, 2013.
- IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE 2003 DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY SAN MIGUEL AND UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF THE "FRESH PERIOD RULE" PROVIDED UNDER THE NEW 2009 DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE WHICH TOOK EFFECT DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS SUIT BEFORE THE PARAD, IN THE CASE AT BAR.
- IN APPLYING THE NEYPES RULING IN THE INSTANT CASE INSTEAD OF THE RULING IN PANOLINO V. TAJALA32 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSAILED ORDERS WERE NOT ISSUED BY A COURT.33
Sec. 1. Transitory Provisions. These Rules shall govern all cases filed on or after its effectivity. All cases pending with the Board and the Adjudicators, prior to the date of effectivity of these Rules, shall be governed by the DARAB Rules prevailing at the time of their filing. (Emphasis ours)In the present case, the Complaint was filed on September 10, 2008 prior to the date of effectivity of the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure on September 1, 2009. Thus, pursuant to the above-cited rule, the applicable rule in the counting of the period for filing a Notice of Appeal with the Board is governed by Section 12, Rule X of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, which states that:
The filing of the Motion for Reconsideration shall interrupt the period to perfect an appeal. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party shall have the remaining period within which to perfect his appeal. Said period shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from the receipt of the notice of denial.Application of the "fresh period rule" enunciated in the Neypes ruling
The "fresh period rule" in Neypes declares:The same principle was applied in the recent case of San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. and Oscar Violago v. Ma. Cristina F. Bayang,35 wherein this Court reiterated that the "fresh period rule" in Neypes applies only to judicial appeals and not to administrative appeals.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryTo standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.As reflected in the above-quoted portion of the decision in Neypes, the "fresh period rule" shall apply to Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts); Rule 41 (appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to the [CA] or Supreme Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to the [CA]); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the [CA]); and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court). Obviously, these Rules cover judicial proceedings under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
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 [CA]; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the [CA]; and Rule 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.
x x x x
Petitioner's present case is administrative in nature involving an appeal from the decision or order of the DENR regional office to the DENR Secretary. Such appeal is indeed governed by Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990. As earlier quoted, Section 1 clearly provides that if the motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal "during the remainder of the period of appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial;" whereas if the decision is reversed, the adverse party has a fresh 15-day period to perfect his appeal.34 (Citation omitted and emphasis ours)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 9-26.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. YbaƱez, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring; id. at 27-38.
3 Id. at 39-41.
4 Id. at 64-68.
5 Id. at 264-266.
6 Id. at 64-65, 264.
7 Id. at 29.
8 Id. at 284-287.
9 Id. at 284-285.
10 Id. at 288-290.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 90-92.
13 Id. at 91-92.
14 Id. at 93-96.
15 Id. at 106-107.
16 Id. at 123.
17 Id. at 108-109.
18 Id. at 118-122.
19 Id. at 118-120.
20 Id. at 123-125.
21 Id. at 123-124.
22 Id. at 123.
23 Id. at 124.
24 Id. at 126-129.cralawred
25 Id. at 130-131.
26 Id. at 134-157.cralawred
27 506 Phil. 613 (2005).
28Rollo, p. 150.
29 Id. at 27-38.
30 Id. at 36.
31 Id. at 39-41.
32 636 Phil. 313 (2010).
33Rollo, p. 17.
34Panolino v. Tajala, supra note 32, at 317-319.
35 G.R. No. 194702, April 20, 2015.
36Cadena v. Civil Service Commission, 679 Phil. 165, 176-177 (2012).