GR 158615; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158615 . March 4, 2005. SPOUSES FORTUNATA V. BANIQUED and TEOFILO BANIQUED, Petitioners, vs. TERESITA S. RAMOS and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Teresita S. Ramos filed a complaint for annulment of title against petitioner spouses. The petitioners, through counsel, failed to file an answer and were declared in default. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Ramos, declaring the title null and void and ordering its cancellation. The petitioners received a copy of the decision on June 5, 1998. On June 23, 1998, they filed a motion for new trial, which was set for hearing on July 1, 1998. Respondent Ramos opposed the motion, arguing it was filed out of time and that the decision had become final.
While the motion for new trial was still pending resolution, the petitioners filed a “Manifestation and Notice of Appeal” on July 27, 1998, stating they were appealing the decision should their motion be denied. The trial court eventually denied the motion for new trial on September 22, 1999. The petitioners later filed an urgent motion to elevate the records to the Court of Appeals. The trial court denied this motion, ruling that the earlier notice of appeal was premature and inefficacious, and granted Ramos’s motion for execution.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion to elevate records, thereby effectively dismissing the appeal, on the ground that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed while a motion for new trial was pending.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The ruling is anchored on strict adherence to procedural rules governing appeals. Under the Rules of Court, a motion for new trial suspends the running of the period to appeal. A notice of appeal must be filed within the reglementary period from notice of the order denying the motion for new trial. Filing a notice of appeal while the motion for new trial is still pending is premature and a mere scrap of paper; it does not toll the reglementary period.
In this case, the petitioners filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998, while their motion for new trial was still unresolved. This was a procedural misstep. The correct course was to wait for the resolution of their motion and, upon its denial, to file a notice of appeal within the remaining period. By filing prematurely, they did not validly perfect an appeal. Consequently, the trial court’s decision became final and executory after the motion for new trial was denied and no timely appeal was filed. The trial court’s duty to elevate records is ministerial only when a valid appeal is perfected. Since no valid appeal existed, the court correctly denied the motion and issued the writ of execution. Procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential for the orderly administration of justice, and their violation binds the client to the negligence of counsel.