G.R. No. 191033 January 11, 2016
THE ORCHARD GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., EXEQUIEL D. ROBLES, CARLO R.H. MAGNO, CONRADO L. BENITEZ II, VICENTE R. SANTOS, HENRY CUA LOPING, MARIZA SANTOS-TAN, TOMAS B. CLEMENTE III, and FRANCIS C. MONTALLANA, Petitioners, vs. ERNESTO V. YU and MANUEL C. YUHICO, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Ernesto Yu and Manuel Yuhico, members of The Orchard Golf & Country Club, went to play golf on a Sunday. Another member canceled, leaving them as a twosome. The Club’s “no twosome” policy prohibited groups of less than three from teeing off before 1:00 p.m. on weekends. The management could not find a third player. Respondent Yu requested Assistant Golf Director Francis Montallana to allow them to play as a twosome, starting from hole no. 10, but Montallana refused. Yu shouted invectives at Montallana, and the respondents proceeded to tee off without permission and without securing a required tee time control slip. Montallana filed an incident report. The Board of Directors requested respondents’ written comments and subsequently resolved to suspend them from July 16 to October 15, 2000. Respondents filed petitions for injunction with the SEC-SICD, which issued a TRO and later a writ of preliminary injunction against the suspension. The SEC en banc issued guidelines stating that provisional remedies issued in intra-corporate cases filed before August 8, 2000, would be effective only until that date. The Club’s board later implemented the suspension after the writ’s purported lapse. Respondents filed a petition for indirect contempt in the RTC of Dasmariñas, Cavite, which issued an order to maintain the status quo. Petitioners challenged this order via certiorari in the CA, which reversed the RTC. Respondents then filed a motion ad cautelam in the RTC of Imus, Cavite, which issued a TRO and later a writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners challenged this via another certiorari petition in the CA, which issued a TRO against the Imus RTC. Respondents elevated this to the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 150335 & 152687), which, on March 1, 2007, denied the petitions, ruling that the SEC injunction was effective only until August 8, 2000, and that the other issues were moot. Meanwhile, trial on the merits proceeded in the Imus RTC (SEC Case Nos. 001-01 and 002-01). On December 4, 2008, the Imus RTC declared the suspension void, made the injunction permanent, and awarded moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs to respondents. Petitioners received the decision on December 22, 2008, and on January 5, 2009, filed a Notice of Appeal with payment of docket fees. Respondents opposed, arguing the decision was final as no petition for review under Rule 43 was filed. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition with the CA and a Motion to Withdraw the Notice of Appeal with the RTC. The CA initially granted a 15-day extension on January 15, 2009, but upon respondents’ motion for reconsideration, the CA set aside this grant in its September 16, 2009 Resolution, ruling that the proper mode of appeal was a petition for review under Rule 43, not an ordinary appeal, and that the motion for extension was filed out of time. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on January 21, 2010. Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside its resolution granting petitioners a 15-day extension to file a petition for review under Rule 43 and in ultimately dismissing their appeal.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Imus RTC Decision was an appealable disposition under Section 1(c) of Rule 41, as it was a final order or judgment in a special proceeding. However, the governing rule for appeals from the RTC in cases originally filed with the SEC and transferred to the RTC pursuant to the Securities Regulation Code is Rule 43, as provided by A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC and A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC. Therefore, petitioners should have filed a petition for review with the CA under Rule 43 within 15 days from notice of the RTC decision. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal, which is the wrong mode. Their subsequent Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review under Rule 43 was filed with the CA only on January 13, 2009, which was 22 days after they received the RTC decision on December 22, 2008. The 15-day period to appeal under Rule 43 had already lapsed. A motion for extension must be filed within the reglementary period for appeal. Since it was filed late, the CA correctly set aside its initial grant of extension. The RTC decision had thus become final and executory. The Supreme Court also noted that the RTC’s award of damages was excessive and lacked sufficient basis, but this observation did not affect the finality of the decision due to the procedural lapse.