Republic of the Philippines vs. Martinez

Although perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court may relax the rules and reinstate an appeal filed three days late where the appellant filed separate notices of appeal on time, promptly sought to correct an erroneous designation of the appellate court, and substantial justice so requires.

The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government and Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation, initiated three separate complaints for unlawful detainer and damages against Augustus Albert V. Martinez, doing business under the name and style of “Uncle Moe’s Shawarma Hub,” City Golf Development Corporation, and Geek’s New York Pizzeria, Inc. The cases were raffled to the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 72 and docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 18675, 18679, and 18682. In three separate Decisions all dated March 15, 2013, the MeTC dismissed the complaints against the respondents.

Petitioner received copies of the Decisions on May 20, 2013, giving it 15 days, or until June 4, 2013, within which to file an appeal. On June 3, 2013, petitioner filed separate Notices of Appeal dated May 28, 2013, appealing the MeTC Decisions to the Court of Appeals instead of the Regional Trial Court. On June 13, 2013, the MeTC received petitioner’s Manifestation and Motion with attached Notice of Appeal dated June 4, 2013. In that Manifestation and Motion, petitioner acknowledged its error and pleaded that the Notice of Appeal dated May 28, 2013 be disregarded and that the attached Notice of Appeal be considered as its proper Notice of Appeal. On June 18, 2013, the MeTC issued a twin Order: the first granted petitioner’s Manifestation and Motion and ordered the substitution of the Notice of Appeal dated May 28, 2013 with the attached Notice of Appeal; the second gave due course to petitioner’s Notice of Appeal and directed transmittal of the records to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC.

Respondents thereafter filed their Urgent Motions to Dismiss Appeal before the RTC of Pasig City, raffled to Branches 155 and 67. In its Order dated February 7, 2014, RTC Branch 155 denied respondent Martinez’s Motion for lack of merit, finding that the MeTC Order dated June 18, 2013 constituted sufficient finding as to the timeliness of the appeal and that the date of mailing stamped on the Manifestation and Motion was considered the date of filing under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. In its Order dated April 21, 2014, RTC Branch 67 likewise denied the Motion of respondents City Golf and Geek’s, Inc., ruling that the MeTC, which had jurisdiction to give due course to the appeal, had already ruled on the regularity of its filing. Respondents’ subsequent Motions for Reconsideration were denied by RTC Branch 155 and RTC Branch 67 in Orders dated May 30, 2014 and July 10, 2014, respectively.

Respondents then filed separate Petitions for Certiorari before the CA, docketed as SP No. 135972, SP No. 136895, and SP No. 136896, which the CA later consolidated. Respondents imputed that both RTCs acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner’s appeal was perfected on time. In its assailed Decision dated November 4, 2015, the CA ruled that the RTCs gravely abused their discretion and that petitioner failed to prove that its appeal was timely filed. The CA found that petitioner received the MeTC Decision dated March 15, 2013 on May 20, 2013, had 15 days within which to file an appeal, or until June 4, 2013, but that petitioner’s Notice of Appeal was filed only on June 7, 2013, not June 4, 2013. Although petitioner asserted that its appeal was sent through registered mail on June 4, 2013 as shown by the date stamped on the envelop, the CA held that petitioner did not attach the envelop or a certified copy thereof to its pleadings. The CA thus dismissed petitioner’s appeal and enjoined the RTCs from proceeding further. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the CA Resolution dated April 14, 2016.

The CA found that petitioner received the MeTC Decisions on May 20, 2013, had until June 4, 2013 to appeal, but filed its Notice of Appeal only on June 7, 2013. It also found that petitioner did not attach the envelop or a certified copy thereof to prove its claim of mailing on June 4, 2013. The RTCs, by contrast, had found the appeal timely based on the June 4, 2013 date stamped on the Manifestation and Motion.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner asserted that the CA erred in ruling that both RTCs of Pasig City committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Orders and in ruling that petitioner’s appeal was timely filed.
• Timeliness and Burden of Proof: Petitioner insisted that the RTC Orders had sufficient and legal basis, that the RTCs found both the envelop and the Manifestation and Motion stamped with the date June 4, 2013, and that it had discharged its burden of proving that its appeal was in fact timely filed.
• Designation of Appellate Court: Petitioner asserted that an appellant need not indicate the court to which its appeal is being interposed.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondents imputed that the RTCs of Pasig City, Branch 155 and Branch 67, acted with grave abuse of discretion when they ruled that petitioner’s appeal was perfected on time.
• Irregularities in Timeliness: Respondents alleged irregularities pertaining to the timeliness of the filing of the Notice of Appeal.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Timeliness: Whether the CA erred on a question of law in finding that the RTCs committed grave abuse of discretion when they ruled that petitioner’s appeal was timely filed.
• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules: Whether the 15-day period to perfect an appeal may be relaxed and the appeal reinstated despite its late filing.
• Designation of Appellate Court: Whether an appellant need not indicate the court to which its appeal is being interposed.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Timeliness: No, as to the CA’s finding of late filing and grave abuse of discretion. The CA correctly held that the Notice of Appeal was filed only on June 7, 2013, not June 4, 2013, because petitioner failed to prove timely mailing; the right to appeal is a statutory privilege.
• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules: Yes. Although perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court may suspend the rules when the purpose of justice requires; the three-day delay and petitioner’s effort to correct its erroneous notice warranted reinstatement.
• Designation of Appellate Court: No. An appellant must indicate the correct appellate court; an appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall not be transferred to the proper court but shall be dismissed outright.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Timeliness: Rule 45 generally limits review to questions of law, but the Court recognized exceptions, including when the CA’s findings are contrary to the trial court’s. Timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue. Petitioner bore the burden of proving that it filed its Notice of Appeal on June 4, 2013. It presented only a photocopy of the Manifestation and Motion with attached Notice of Appeal and a photocopy of a registry receipt stamped June 4, 2013. It did not attach the envelop or a certified copy, did not present the original registry receipts, and the registry receipt numbers in its petition (2376, 2378, 2394) did not match those in the document (2379, 2380, 2381). The MeTC had pronounced that the Manifestation and Motion with attached Notice of Appeal was filed on June 7, 2013 and received on June 13, 2013. The photocopy lacked authenticity and could be tampered with; failure to produce the original receipts gave rise to the presumption that the evidence would be adverse. Thus, the CA correctly found that the Notice of Appeal was filed only on June 7, 2013, and that the RTCs gravely abused their discretion in ruling otherwise.
• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules: Perfection of an appeal within the period fixed by the rules is mandatory and jurisdictional, but the Court has the power to suspend its own rules when the purpose of justice requires. The Court cited Joson vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, Barnes vs. Hon. Quijano Padilla, Aguam vs. Court of Appeals, Ginete, and Labao vs. Flores for the policy of affording litigants the amplest opportunity for determination on the merits and for the recognized exceptions to strict observance of the rules. Petitioner received the MeTC Decisions on May 20, 2013 and had until June 4, 2013 to appeal. It filed separate Notices of Appeal on June 3, 2013, but erroneously stated that the appeal was to the CA instead of the RTC. Upon discovering the error, it filed a Manifestation and Motion with corrected Notice of Appeal, which the CA found was filed on June 7, 2013. The delay was only three days. Given petitioner’s timely initial notices and its effort to correct the error, the Court relaxed the 15-day period and reinstated the appeals to serve substantial justice.
• Designation of Appellate Court: The Rules of Court require that the correct appellate court be indicated. Under Rule 50, Section 2, an appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. Not all judgments and final orders of the MeTC are elevated to the RTC; cases decided in the exercise of delegated jurisdiction are appealable to the CA under Section 34 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Hence, it is necessary to indicate the correct appellate court, and petitioner’s assertion to the contrary was rejected.

• Right to appeal is a statutory privilege — The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law. Perfection of an appeal within the period fixed by the rules is mandatory and jurisdictional. The Court applied this by finding petitioner’s Notice of Appeal late, but then relaxed the period to serve substantial justice.
• Liberal construction of procedural rules — Procedural rules may be relaxed when the purpose of justice requires, especially to afford litigants the amplest opportunity to have their cases determined on the merits. The Court applied this to excuse a three-day delay where petitioner had filed notices of appeal on time and promptly tried to correct an erroneous designation of the appellate court.
• Burden of proof and best evidence — He who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it. The best evidence of mailing is the original registry receipt or the envelop; a mere photocopy lacks assurance of genuineness and can be tampered with. Petitioner’s failure to produce the original registry receipts and envelop led to the finding that it did not prove mailing on June 4, 2013.
• Appeal to wrong court — Under Rule 50, Section 2, an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. The Court applied this in rejecting petitioner’s assertion that it need not indicate the court to which its appeal was interposed.
• Rule 45 limited to questions of law; exceptions — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 generally raises only questions of law, and findings of fact of the trial court and the CA are final and conclusive. Exceptions include when the CA’s findings are contrary to the trial court’s, as when the CA and the RTCs differed on the timeliness of the appeal. The Court applied an exception to review the factual issue of timeliness.

• "The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and must be exercised in accordance with the law." — This passage states the foundational rule on the statutory nature of appeal and explains why strict compliance with the reglementary period is ordinarily required.
• "We hold to give due course to petitioner's appeal even though it was filed beyond the reglementary period to serve substantial justice." — This is the Court’s ratio for granting the petition despite affirming the CA’s finding of late filing; it anchors the liberal construction of procedural rules.
• "The Rules of Court is clear that an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright." — This passage rejects petitioner’s assertion that an appellant need not indicate the correct appellate court and explains the consequence of appealing to the wrong court.
• "Mere photocopy of the registry receipt in this case, militates against petitioner's position as there is no indicium of its authenticity. In fact, a mere photocopy lacks assurance of its genuineness, considering that photocopies can easily be tampered with." — This passage supplies the evidentiary basis for the finding that petitioner failed to prove it mailed its Notice of Appeal on June 4, 2013.

• Mangahas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173375, September 25, 2008 — Cited for the rule that timeliness of an appeal is a factual issue requiring review of the evidence, and for the liberal construction of procedural rules.
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Silicon Philippines, Inc., 729 Phil. 156, 165 (2014) — Cited for the exceptions to the rule that only questions of law may be raised under Rule 45.
• Atty. Banda vs. Ermita, 632 Phil. 501, 533 (2010) — Cited for the burden of proof rule that he who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it.
• Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. Alcaide, 680 Phil. 609, 619 (2012) — Cited for the principle that the right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege.
• Joson vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, 816 Phil. 288 (2017) — Cited for the policy of liberal construction of the Rules of Court and relaxation of procedural rules to serve substantial justice.
• Barnes vs. Hon. Quijano Padilla, 500 Phil. 303 (2005) — Cited in Joson for the same liberal-construction principle.
• Labao vs. Flores, 649 Phil. 213, 222-223 (2010) — Cited for the recognized exceptions to strict observance of procedural rules.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 generally raises only questions of law, and the Court is not a trier of facts. The Court applied the exceptions to this rule because the CA’s factual findings on timeliness were contrary to those of the trial courts.
• Rule 13, Section 3, Rules of Court — The date of mailing of a motion or pleading, as stamped on the envelop or registry receipt, is considered the date of filing. The RTCs relied on this provision, but the Court found petitioner failed to prove the June 4, 2013 mailing because it presented only a photocopy of the registry receipt.
• Rule 50, Section 2, Rules of Court — An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. The Court cited this in rejecting petitioner’s assertion that it need not indicate the correct appellate court.
• Section 34, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) — Not all judgments and final orders of the MeTC are elevated to the RTC; cases decided in the exercise of delegated jurisdiction are appealable to the CA. The Court cited this to explain why an appellant must indicate the correct appellate court.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ., concur.