CASE 2016-0011: MILAGROSA JOCSON VS. NELSON SAN MIGUEL (G.R. No. 206941, 09 MARCH 2016, REYES J.) (SUBJECT/S: FRESH PERIOD RULE; APPEALS IN DARAB CASES; RIGHT TO APPEAL) (BRIEF TITLE: JOCSON VS. SAN MIGUEL)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated October 29, 2012 and Resolution dated April 16, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122007 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated July 27, 2011 and October 18, 2011 of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator are hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT IS THE FRESH PERIOD RULE?
“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 cour” according to the Decision of the CA.
SAN MIGUEL FILED ITS APPEAL UNDER THE FRESH PERIOD RULE. DARAB RULED THAT SUCH RULE DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE CASE WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE 2009 DARAB RULES WHICH ADOPTED THE FRESH PERIOD RULE. IS CA CORRECT?
NO. THE 2009 DARAB RULES PROVIDES THAT THE FRESH PERIOD RULE IS NOT RETROACTIVE.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE FRESH PERIOD RULE?
ACCORDING TO THE CA DECISION, THE PURPOSE 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.
THE FRESH PERIOD RULE WAS ENUNCIATED IN THE NEYPES CASE. WHAT DOES THIS CASE SAYS:
The “fresh period rule” in Neypes declares:
To 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.
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.
DOES THE NEYPES RULING APPLY TO THIS CASE?
NO. THE PRESENT CASE IS ADMINISTRATIVE. THE NEYPES RULING APPLIES ONLY TO JUDICIAL APPEALS AND NOT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.
“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)”
“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.”
WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL?
THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT OR PART OF DUE PROCESS BUT IS MERELY A STATUTORY PRIVILEGE.
“As a final note, it is worthy to emphasize that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but is merely a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. The right is unavoidably forfeited by the litigant who does not comply with the manner thus prescribed. In addition, the liberal application of rules of procedure for perfecting appeals is still the exception, and not the rule; and it is only allowed in exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of justice.36 This exceptional situation, however, does not obtain in this case.”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 