GR 162518; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162518; August 19, 2009
RODRIGO SUMIRAN, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES GENEROSO DAMASO and EVA DAMASO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rodrigo Sumiran filed a civil case for sum of money and two criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against respondent Generoso Damaso. The cases were consolidated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Damaso in the criminal cases and ruled against Sumiran in the civil case, ordering him to pay damages. The decision was promulgated on February 21, 2003. Sumiran filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order dated May 9, 2003. Sumiran then filed a Notice of Appeal on May 29, 2003.
The RTC denied due course to the notice of appeal, ruling it was filed out of time. It held that Sumiran received the decision on February 21, 2003, the date of promulgation. His motion for reconsideration was filed on the 13th day (March 6), and his notice of appeal was filed only on May 29, which was beyond the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals affirmed this, dismissing Sumiran’s petition for certiorari. It ruled he was bound by a judicial admission of receiving the decision on February 21, 2003, making his appeal period lapse before May 29.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner’s period to appeal had lapsed, thereby denying due course to his Notice of Appeal.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA and RTC orders. The Court applied the “fresh period rule” established in Neypes v. Court of Appeals. This rule allows a party who has filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of the order denying such motion within which to file a notice of appeal. This rule standardizes appeal periods and applies retroactively to cases pending at the time of its promulgation.
Here, Sumiran filed a motion for reconsideration. He alleged receipt of the order denying this motion on May 19, 2003. Applying the Neypes rule, he had a fresh 15-day period from May 19 to file his notice of appeal. His filing on May 29, 2003, was only the 10th day, well within the fresh period. Therefore, his appeal was timely, and the RTC erred in denying it due course. The Court directed the RTC to give due course to Sumiran’s Notice of Appeal.