Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RULE 41: APPEAL FROM THE RTCs The issue raised by petitioner before the appellate court
is one of law because it can be resolved by merely
JULIETA PANOLINO vs. JOSEPHINE L. TAJALA determining what the law is under the undisputed facts. The
G.R. No. 183616 June 29, 2010
appellate court’s ruling that such issue raises a question of fact
Facts: which entails an examination of the probative value of the
The DENR Regional Executive Director Jim O. Sampulna (RD evidence presented by the parties is thus erroneous.
Sampulna), denied for lack merit the application of Julieta
Panolino (petitioner), which was opposed by herein respondent As reflected in the decision in Neypes, the fresh period rule
Josephine L. Tajala, for a free patent over a parcel of land shall apply to Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts
located in Sultan Kudarat, and directed petitioner to vacate the to the Regional Trial Courts); Rule 41 (appeals from the
contested property and remove at her expense whatever Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals or Supreme
improvements she may have introduced thereon. Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to the
Court of Appeals); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial
Petitioner received a copy of the decision on June 27, 2007, of agencies to the Court of Appeals); and Rule 45 (appeals by
which she filed a motion for reconsideration on July 11, 2007. certiorari to the Supreme Court). Obviously, these Rules
Her motion was denied on September 6, 2007, copy of which cover judicial proceedings under the 1997 Rules of Civil
she received on September 12, 2007. Procedure.
On September 19, 2007, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal bef Petitioners present case is administrative in nature
ore the Office of RD Sampulna, stating that she was appealing involving an appeal from the decision or order of the DENR
the decision and order to the Office of the DENR Secretary. By regional office to the DENR Secretary. Such appeal is indeed
Order of October 16, 2007, RD Sampulna denied the notice of governed by Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 87, Series of
appeal, holding that it was filed beyond the reglementary 1990. As earlier quoted, Section 1 clearly provides that if the
period. The RD explained that petitioner should have filed her motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall perfect
appeal on September 13, 2007 as she had only one day left of his appeal during the remainder of the period of appeal,
the 15-day reglementary period for the purpose, pursuant to reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial; whereas if the
DENR Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990 which decision is reversed, the adverse party has a fresh 15-day
provides that if a motion for reconsideration of the period to perfect his appeal.
decision/order of the Regional Office is filed and such motion
for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall have the right Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, as clarified
to perfect his in Neypes, being inconsistent with Section 1 of Administrative
appeal during the remainder of the period for appeal, reckoned Order No. 87, Series of 1990, it may not apply to the case of
from receipt of the resolution of denial.The administrative petitioner whose motion for reconsideration was denied.
order also provides that “The Rules of Court shall apply when
not inconsistent with the provisions hereof.” WHEREFORE, the assailed issuances of the Court of Appeals
are AFFIRMED, not on the ground advanced therein but on the
Invoking the rule enunciated by this Court in the 2005 case ground reflected in the foregoing discussion. No costs.
of Neypes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., petitioner argued in
her motion for reconsideration of RD Sampulnas October 16,
2007 Order that she still had a fresh period of fifteen days from
her receipt on September 12, 2007 of copy of the Order EMELINDA V. ABEDES vs.CA, RELIA QUIZON ARCIGA and
denying her motion for reconsideration. However, her motion SHERIFF RONBERTO B. VALINO
was denied. G.R. No. 174373 October 15, 2007
Petitioner elevated the matter via certiorari before the CA Petition: Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
which, by Resolution, dismissed it on the ground that petitioner Rules of Court
failed to exhaust administrative remedies, she having
bypassed the Office of the DENR Secretary and the Office of Facts:
the President before resorting to judicial action.
Respondent Relia Quizon Arciga filed an action before the RTC
of Pasig City against Wilfredo P. Abedes (Wilfredo), husband of
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that her petition
herein petitioner, seeking support for her daughter, Dannielle
for certiorari raised a purely legal issue. The appellate court,
Ann Arciga (Danielle Ann). A Decision was therein rendered,
holding that the issue raised is clearly a question of fact,
declaring Wilfredo the natural father of Danielle Ann. Wilfredo
denied petitioners motion. Hence, the present petition for
was similarly ordered by the RTC to support Danielle Ann.
review on certiorari.
Notwithstanding the adverse claim, a Notice of Parenthetically, it must be emphasized that under Rule 56, Sec.
Sheriffs Sale was made announcing the sale to the public and 5(f) of the Rules of Court, which governs the procedure in the
to the highest bidder of all the rights, claims, and shares of Supreme Court, a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, as in
Wilfredo in the property covered by TCT No. 292139. Aggrieved, this case, merits an outright dismissal. Patently, the petition
petitioner filed a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for Writ of must fail.
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and
Damages before the RTC of Tarlac City Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court elaborates on the
modes of appeal:
After due hearing, the RTC of Tarlac City issued a
TRO. Meanwhile, respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss SEC. 2. Modes of appeal.
the Complaint of petitioner. However, the RTC of Tarlac
City dismissed the motion for want of merit. (a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
In their Answer, respondents Relia Quizon Arciga and Sheriff Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
Ronberto B. Valino principally contended that the property original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a
subject of the levy is presumed conjugal property; and as such, notice of appeal with the court which rendered
liable for the judgment against Wilfredo. the judgment or final order appealed from and
serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
In view of this development, petitioner filed a Motion for party. No record on appeal shall be required
Summary Judgment. The RTC of Tarlac City issued the assailed except in special proceedings and other
Order ruling that the property covered by TCT No. 292139 is cases of multiple or separate appeals where
petitioner’s paraphernal property. As her exclusive property, it the law or these Rules so require. In such
may not be made liable for the obligations of Wilfredo. Hence, cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and
the RTC enjoined respondent Sheriff from conducting the public served in like manner.
sale of the property covered by TCT No.
(b) Petition for review. The appeal to the
Respondents Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing order Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
was denied by the RTC, prompting respondents to file an appeal Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
with the Court of Appeals. appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for
review in accordance with Rule 42.
The Court of Appeals issued a Decision, reversing and setting
aside the appealed Order and Resolution of the RTC of Tarlac (c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where
City. only questions of law are raised or involved,
the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals said that the Family Code petition for review on certiorari in accordance
provisions on conjugal partnerships govern the property with Rule 45.
relations between petitioner and Wilfredo, notwithstanding the
fact that their marriage was celebrated prior to the effectivity of
the Family Code. Following the foregoing line of ratiocination, The first mode of appeal, governed by Rule 41, is taken to the
the Court of Appeals held that the property covered by TCT No. Court of Appeals on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact
292139 may be levied upon in execution for the support of and law. The second mode of appeal, covered by Rule 42, is
Danielle Ann. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The brought to the Court of Appeals on questions of fact, of law, or
CA denied the motion. Hence, the Petition before us filed under mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. provided for by Rule 45, is elevated to the Supreme Court only
on questions of law.
Issue: Whether the petitioner used the appropriate mode of
appeal In the case at bar, respondents utilized the first mode of
Ruling: No. appeal. Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC of
Tarlac City on 18 August 2004, giving notice that they were
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal, board appealing its Order and Resolution, dated 9 June 2004 and 3
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted August 2004, respectively, to the Court of Appeals. Indeed,
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states that an appeal
to the Court of Appeals shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal transmitted to the appellate court together
with the court which rendered the judgment and serving a copy with the original record or the record on
thereof upon the adverse party. The question now arises appeal."
whether respondents raised questions of fact or mixed
questions of fact and law before the Court of Appeals. A review Contrary to the submission of private respondents that the
of the records reveals that respondents, in their appeal with the aforecited rule is merely directory, the payment of the docket
and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both
Court of Appeals, raised mixed questions of fact and law.
mandatory and jurisdictional. Section 1 (c), Rule 50 of the
Rules of Court provides: "Failure of the appellant to pay the
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED. Costs against docket and other fees as provided in Section 4 of Rule 41" is a
petitioner. ground for the dismissal of the appeal. Indeed, it has been held
that failure of the appellant to conform with the rules on appeal
GABRIEL LAZARO and the heirs of FLORENCIA PINEDA renders the judgment final and executory. Verily, the right to
and EVA VIERNES vs. CA and Spouses JOSE and ANITA appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of that
ALESNA right must comply with the statute or the rule.[
G.R. No. 137761. April 6, 2000
In the present case, the private respondents failed to pay the
Failure to pay docket and other lawful fees within the required docket fees within the reglementary period. In fact, the
prescribed period is a ground for the dismissal of an appeal. Court notes that they paid the fees only after the CA had
This rule cannot be suspended by the mere invocation of "the dismissed the appeal, or six months after the filing of the
interest of substantial justice." Procedural rules may be relaxed Notice of Appeal. Clearly, existing jurisprudence and the Rules
only in exceptionally meritorious cases. mandate that the appeal should be dismissed.
Petition: Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 We must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of
substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically
compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Indeed, in no
Facts: uncertain terms, the Court held that the said rules may be
relaxed only in "exceptionally meritorious cases." In this case,
Before the RTC of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Spouses Jose the CA and the private respondents failed to show that this
and Anita Alesna, private respondents herein, filed a civil case is one such exception.
action for annulment of title, reconveyance and damages (with
prayer for preliminary injunction) against Petitioners Gabriel WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court of
Lazaro and the heirs of Florencia Pineda and Eva Viernes. Appeals' assailed Resolutions, dated July 31, 1998 and
December 28, 1998, are SET ASIDE. The Decision of the
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya (Branch
petitioners. Thereafter, the private respondents filed a Notice of 27) in Civil Case No.4058 is
Appeal before the trial court. declared FINAL and EXECUTORY. No pronouncement as to
costs.
The CA dismissed the appeal for failure of herein private
respondents to pay the required docket fees within the
prescribed period. Thereafter, it issued its first assailed REPUBLIC vs. CA, HON. MADRONA and APOLINARIA
Resolution granting their Motion for Reconsideration and MALINAO JOMOC
reinstating the appeal. G.R. No. 163604. May 6, 2005
Facts:
Subsequently, the petitioners also filed their own Motion for
Reconsideration assailing the said Resolution. As earlier In the Matter of Declaration of Presumptive Death of Absentee
stated, the CA denied their Motion. Hence, this Petition. Spouse Clemente P. Jomoc, RTC, granted the petition and
accordingly declared the absentee spouse, who had left his
Issue: Whether the failure to pay docket and other lawful fees petitioner-wife nine years earlier, presumptively dead. The
within the prescribed period is a ground for the dismissal of an Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought to
appeal. appeal the trial courts order by filing a Notice of Appeal.
The trial court, noting that no record of appeal was filed and
Ruling: Yes. served as required by and pursuant to Sec. 2(a), Rule 41 of the
The Petition is meritorious. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the present case being a special
The Rules of Court, as amended, specifically provides that proceeding, disapproved the Notice of Appeal.
appellate court docket and other lawful fees should be paid
within the period for taking an appeal. Hence, Section 4 of Rule The Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration of the trial courts
41 reads: order of disapproval having been denied, it filed a Petition
for Certiorari before the CA, contending that the declaration of
"Section 4. Appellate court docket and other presumptive death of a person under Article 41 of the Family
lawful fees. -- Within the period for taking an Code is not a special proceeding or a case of multiple or
appeal,[9] the appellant shall pay to the clerk separate appeals requiring a record on appeal.
of the court which rendered the judgment or The Court of Appeals denied the Republics petition on
final order appealed from, the full amount of procedural and substantive grounds stating that the petition is
the appellate court docket and other lawful not sufficient in form. It failed to attach to its petition a certified
fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be true copy of the assailed Order. However, despite the
procedural lapses, the Court resolves to delve deeper into the MAJOR ROMEO G. ELEPANTE vs.HON. MADAYAG and
substantive issue of the validity/nullity of the assailed order. MAJ. GEN. RODOLFO BIAZON, Commanding General,
National Capital Region Defense Command
The principal issue in this case is whether a petition for G.R. No. 93559 April 26, 1991
declaration of the presumptive death of a person is in the
nature of a special proceeding. If it is, the period to appeal is
30 days and the party appealing must, in addition to a notice of Petition: This is a petition for certiorari
appeal, file with the trial court a record on appeal to perfect its Facts:
appeal. Otherwise, if the petition is an ordinary action, the
period to appeal is 15 days from notice or decision or final Major Romeo Elepante filed a petition for habeas corpus with
order appealed from and the appeal is perfected by filing a this Court. The Court resolved to issue a writ returnable to the
notice of appeal (Section 3, Rule 41, Rules of Court). Executive Judge of the RTC, Makati, Metro Manila. Also this
Court directed the latter to hear and decide the case.
Issue: Whether a record on appeal shall be required in order
to perfect an appeal In the hearing, Romeo Elepante testified that he is a Major in
the Philippine Navy (Marines) and the Executive Officer of the
Ruling: Yes. Metropolitan Citizens Military Training Command; that on April
15, 1990, a platoon of armed soldiers led by Captain Doctor
brought him to the NCR Defense Command where he was
This Court finds that the instant petition is in the nature of a detained; that there was no warrant for his arrest; that he was
special proceeding and not an ordinary action. The instant confined as prisoner at Fort Bonifacio; that no formal charges
petition, being in the nature of a special have been filed against him. The trial court rendered a decision
proceeding, OSG should have filed, in addition to its Notice of dismissing for lack of merit the petition for habeas corpus. The
trial court opined that Major Elepante was arrested because of
Appeal, a record on appeal in accordance with Section 19 of
his involvement in several coup attempts.
the Interim Rules and Guidelines to Implement BP Blg. 129
and Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
Major Elepante filed this petition for review on certiorari,
alleging inter alia, that there is no criminal complaint filed
Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, on against him so that his continued detention is a violation of the
Modes of Appeal, invoked by the trial court in disapproving Constitution. The Office of the Solicitor General filed its
petitioners Notice of Appeal, provides: comment. In his comment the Solicitor General pointed out that
counsel for petitioner received on May 29, 1990, a copy of the
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. - trial court's decision dated May 24, 1990, so that when he filed
this petition on June 11, 1990, the assailed decision had
attained finality. Citing Rule 41, Section 18 of the Revised
(a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court
Rules of Court, appeal in habeas corpus should be filed within
of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment.
Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of Issue: Whether petitioner’s appeal in habeas corpus was
appeal with the court which rendered the timely filed
judgment or final order appealed from and
serving a copy thereof upon the adverse Ruling: No.
party. No record on appeal shall be required
except in special proceedings and Section 18 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, explicitly
other cases of multiple or separate appeals provides, viz:
where the law or these Rules so require. In
such cases, the record on appeal shall be Sec. 18. Appeal in habeas corpus cases, how taken.
filed and served in like manner. (Emphasis — An appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be
and underscoring supplied) perfected by filing with the clerk of the court or the
judge who rendered the judgment, within forty-eight
(48) hours from notice of such judgment, a statement
Finally, on the alleged procedural flaw in petitioners petition that the person making it appeals therefrom.
before the appellate court. Petitioners failure to attach to his
petition before the appellate court a copy of the trial courts order
As interpreted in the case of Saulo v. Brig. Gen. Cruz (109
denying its motion for reconsideration of the disapproval of its Phil. 379 [1960]), which also involved a habeas corpuscase,
Notice of Appeal is not necessarily fatal, for the rules of this Court ruled that the requirement under Section 18 of Rule
procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense. Given the 41 of the Old Rules of Court which provides that an appeal
issue raised before it by petitioner, what the appellate court in habeas corpus should be perfected within twenty-four (24)
should have done was to direct petitioner to comply with the rule. hours (now forty-eight hours under Rule 41, Section 18 of the
Revised Rules of Court), is not only mandatory but
WHEREFORE, the assailed May 5, 2004 Decision of the Court jurisdictional. Hence, this Court has no other alternative but to
of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the case dismiss the appeal filed out of time.
be REMANDED to it for appropriate action in light of the
foregoing discussion. In computing the forty-eight (48) hour period of appeal, this
Court in Kabigting v. Director of Prisons (6 SCRA 281 [1962]),
ruled that the date on which the decision was promulgated
and/or served is not counted and the period starts to run the disclosed by the records." It stated that the MTCC erred in
following day unless the same by a Sunday or legal holiday in granting the reliefs prayed for by the Heirs of Yabao because
which case the period of appeal is to be considered from the they were not warranted by their complaint.
succeeding day. To perfect an appeal, a notice of appeal is
required to be filed with the Clerk of Court or Judge who The motion for reconsideration filed by the Heirs of Yabao was
rendered the judgment (Rule 41, Section 18, Revised Rules of denied by the CA in its Resolution. Hence, this petition.
Court).
Issue: Whether the appellate court can render a decision
In the case at bar, counsel for petitioner received on May 29, based on the grounds not raised or assigned as errors
1990 a copy of the trial court's decision dated May 24, 1990
(Rollo, p. 8). Clearly when he filed the instant petition on June Ruling: Yes.
11, 1990, thirteen (13) days had lapsed, so it was filed outside
the forty-eight (48) hour reglementary period. This being so,
the decision sought to be reviewed is already final so that this The Court has allowed the consideration of other grounds not
Court following the Saulo ruling, has no alternative but to raised or assigned as errors in several instances. In the case
dismiss the instant petition. of Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village
Lessee Homeowners Association, Incorporated,24the Court
enumerated such instances. Thus:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, (a) the petition is hereby
DISMISSED for the decision sought to be reviewed is already
final and (b) General Rodolfo Biazon or his successor is For instance, the Court has allowed the consideration of other
directed to take appropriate action. grounds not raised or assigned as errors specifically in the
following instances: (1) grounds not assigned as errors but
affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) matters not
SO ORDERED. assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical
errors within the contemplation of the law; (3) matters not
L. RULE 45: APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is
COURT necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution
of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid
HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO, Represented by REMEDIOS dispensing piecemeal justice; (4) matters not specifically
CHAN vs. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and
G.R. No. 207266 June 25, 2014 are matters of record having some bearing on the issue
submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower
Petition: Petition for review on certiorari court ignored; (5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
Facts: closely related to an error assigned; and (6) matters not
The case traces its roots to the complaint for ownership and assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination
possession filed by the Heirs of the late Paciano Yabao (Heirs of a question properly assigned is dependent.
of Yabao), represented by Remedios Chan, before the MTCC
of Calbayog City (MTCC),against Paz Lentejas Van der Kolk In the case at bench, the Court agrees with the observation,
(Van der Kolk). analysis and conclusion of the CA. The several errors
committed by the MTCC, which when taken collectively, justify
Van der Kolk filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. She the reversal of its December 4, 2006 Decision.
contended that the predecessors-in-interest of the Heirs of
Yabao had executed a joint affidavit, wherein they renounced The Court agrees with the CA that the MTCC erred when it
their hereditary rights over the subject lot and declared that granted the reliefs prayed by the Heirs of Yabao because the
Faustina Yabao, mother of Van der Kolk, as its true owner. same were not warranted by the allegations in the complaint.
In the case at bench, the respondents, as plaintiffs in the
The MTCC issued a Resolution denying the motion to dismiss MTCC, merely alleged that they are the heirs of Paciano
and holding that there was proper service of summons. Yabao without presenting any proof why they are the latter’s
Subsequently, the MTCC rendered its Decision, declaring Van heirs and in what degree or capacity.
der Kolk in default giving the reason that her non-filing of an
answer within the fresh 10-day period WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
In an attempt to nullify the adverse dispositions of the CA, the Defendants sought reconsideration of the September 18, 2008
Solicitor General's Office had instituted the special civil action Order while respondent moved for the execution of the
of certiorari at bar. It contends that the CA is not legally Decision. The PARAD denied the defendants’ Motion for
competent to take cognizance of and decide the question of Reconsideration and granted respondent’s Motion for
damages in a mandamus suit. Execution.
Issue: Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction, in a special civil Aggrieved, petitioners, together with Ernesto and Marciano,
action of mandamus against a public officer, to take filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA issued a
cognizance of the matter of damages sought to be recovered Resolution, dismissing the petition for certiorari because
from the defendant officer petitioners failed to append a clearly legible duplicate
original/certified true copy of the assailed PARAD Order in
Ruling: Yes. violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
The Solicitor General's Office correctly identifies Section 9, B.P.
129 as the legal provision specifying the original and appellate
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The Solicitor General's Issue: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for
Office evidently searched said Section 9 for an explicit and certiorari on the basis of a strict application of Section 3,
specific statement regarding "actions for moral and exemplary Rule46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
damages," and finding none, concluded that the Court of
Appeals had not been granted competence to assume Ruling: No.
cognizance of claims for such damages. The conclusion is
incorrect. Section 19, governing the exclusive original Petitioners appeal for the liberal construction of the rules
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in civil cases, contains no because they will suffer insurmountably if the case would be
reference whatever to claims "for moral and exemplary dismissed based on a technicality. We deny the petition.
damages," and indeed does not use the word "damages" at all;
yet it is indisputable that said courts have power to try and
decide claims for moral, exemplary and other classes of While it is true that when an appeal is filed, the approval of a
damages accompanying any of the types or kinds of cases notice of appeal is a ministerial duty of the court or tribunal
falling within their specified jurisdiction. The Solicitor General's which rendered the decision, it is required, however, that said
theory that the rule in question is a mere procedural appeal must have been filed on time.24 It bears reiterating that
one allowing joinder of an action of mandamus and another for appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory
damages, is untenable, for it implies that a claim for damages privilege. Thus, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must
arising from the omission or failure to do an act subject of comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Perfection of an
a mandamus suit may be litigated separately from the latter, the appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is
matter of damages not being inextricably linked to the cause of mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting
action for mandamus, which is certainly not the case. an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such
requirements are considered indispensable interdictions
against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly
NARCISO ZAPANTA, EDILBERTO CAPULONG AND discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the appeal
CLARITA CAPULONG vs.CO KING KI renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a
G.R. No. 191694 December 3, 2014 losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the
prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative
right to enjoy the finality of the decision.
SO ORDERED.