G.R. No. 216788 November 20, 2017
UNITED INTERIOR MANGGAHAN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, represented by its President, DANIEL CALILUNG, Petitioner vs. HON. AMBROSIO B. DE LUNA, Presiding Judge, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PALAWAN and PUERTO PRINCESA CITY – BRANCH 51, SPOUSES EDILBERTO VILLON and HELEN PEVILLON, represented by their heirs, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Homeowners Association, represented by its President Daniel Calilung, filed a complaint for Specific Performance against respondents. The RTC dismissed the complaint via an Order granting a demurrer to evidence. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Consequently, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. Respondents moved to strike out the Notice of Appeal, arguing petitioner failed to attach a board resolution authorizing Calilung to file the appeal, as purportedly required by Republic Act No. 9904 (Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners Associations).
The RTC issued an Order expunging the Notice of Appeal from the records, citing “lack of authority from [petitioner’s] Board of Directors to initiate the appeal.” Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a board resolution confirming Calilung’s authority. The RTC denied the motion, reiterating the lack of initial authority and adding that petitioner failed to present proof of payment of appeal fees and violated the three-day notice rule for motions.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in expunging petitioner’s Notice of Appeal from the records.

RULING

Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that the perfection of an appeal vests jurisdiction over the case in the appellate court and divests the trial court of its jurisdiction over the same, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties that do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal. The act of expunging the Notice of Appeal for an alleged procedural defect after the appeal was perfected was a grave legal error, as the trial court had already lost jurisdiction to act on the Notice of Appeal.
Furthermore, the requirement for a board resolution under RA 9904 pertains to the initiation of complaints, not to the filing of a Notice of Appeal. A Notice of Appeal is not a initiatory pleading but a mere expression of intent to elevate the judgment to a higher court. The verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the initiatory Complaint, signed by the President, already constituted substantial compliance with the requirement to show authority to sue for the association. The subsequent submission of the board resolution with the motion for reconsideration cured any perceived initial defect. The RTC’s rigid insistence on a formal board resolution for the Notice of Appeal, contravening established procedural rules, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The petition was granted, and the assailed RTC Orders were annulled and set aside.