GR 162217; (July, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162217 ; July 22, 2015
HEIRS OF ARTURO GARCIA I, (IN SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS OF MELECIO BUENO), Petitioners, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF IBA, ZAMBALES, Respondent.
FACTS
The late Melecio R. Bueno, a tenant-farmer beneficiary, filed an ejectment suit in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Iba, Zambales against the Municipality of Iba, claiming the municipality constructed a public market on a portion of his land in 1983 without his consent and refused to vacate despite demands. The MTC ruled in favor of Bueno. The Municipality of Iba filed a notice of appeal, but the MTC denied it due course. The municipality then filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to assail the MTC’s denial. The RTC granted the petition for certiorari. The petitioners, who substituted Bueno upon his death, moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied. Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The CA dismissed the petition, holding it was not the proper mode of appeal since the assailed RTC orders were issued in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners correctly availed of the remedy of a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court to appeal the decision of the RTC rendered in a special civil action for certiorari.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s resolutions. The Court held that the petitioners availed of the wrong mode of appeal. Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, a decision rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, as in this special civil action for certiorari, is appealed via an ordinary appeal by filing a notice of appeal under Rule 41. In contrast, a petition for review under Rule 42 is the proper mode to appeal decisions of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The petitioners should have filed a notice of appeal in the RTC within 15 days from notice of the judgment and paid the corresponding appellate docket fees. Their failure to comply with these mandatory and jurisdictional requirements forfeited their right to appeal. The Court rejected the plea for liberality, stating that appeal is a statutory privilege, not a right, and the petitioners’ bare plea for substantial justice was insufficient to warrant a relaxation of the rules, as doing so would subvert the essence of the proceedings and disregard the Rules of Court.