CIVIL PROCEDURE Modes of Appeal Heirs of Arturo Garcia (In Substitution Of Heirs Of Melecio Bueno) vs Municipality of Iba

 Heirs of Arturo Garcia (In Substitution Of Heirs Of Melecio Bueno) vs Municipality of Iba

Bueno was the beneficiary of an agricultural land in Zambales. He brought an ejectment suit in the MTC against the Municipality claiming that it had constructed the public market on a portion of his land without his consent; and that his repeated demands for it to vacate the property had remained unheeded.

MTC ruled in favor of Bueno.  Municipality filed its notice of appeal, but the MTC denied. Thus, the Municipality filed its petition for certiorari in the RTC to assail the denial of due course by the MTC. RTC granted the petition for certiorari. 

The petitioners substituted Bueno upon his death, moved for the reconsideration of the judgment granting the petition for certiorari, but the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration. They appealed to the CA by petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

CA "dismissed" the petitioners' petition for review for not being the proper mode of appeal, observing that the assailed orders had been issued by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. MR was denied

I: WON the petition for review was not the proper mode of appeal

YES. An appeal brings up for review any error of judgment committed by a court with jurisdiction over the subject of the suit and over the persons of the parties, or any error committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction amounting to nothing more than an error of judgment. In section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court

Section 2.Modes of appeal.

(a) Ordinary appeal.- The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

(b) Petition for review.- The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.

(c) Appeal by certiorari.-In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the SC by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45

The filing of the notice of appeal sets in motion the remedy of ordinary appeal because the appeal is deemed perfected as to the appealing party upon his timely filing of the notice of appeal. It is upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due time, and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties that the RTC shall lose jurisdiction over the case. The compliance with these requirements was the only way by which they could have perfected their appeal from the adverse judgment of the RTC.

In contrast, an appeal filed under Rule 42 is deemed perfected as to the petitioner upon the timely filing of the petition for review before the CA, while the RTC shall lose jurisdiction upon perfection thereof and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. 

The appeal by notice of appeal under Rule 41 is a matter or right, but the appeal by petition for review under Rule 42 is a matter of discretion. An appeal as a matter of right, which refers to the right to seek the review by a superior court of the judgment rendered by the trial court, exists after the trial in the first instance. In contrast, the discretionary appeal, which is taken from the decision or final order rendered by a court in the exercise of its primary appellate jurisdiction, may be disallowed by the superior court in its discretion. The CA has the discretion whether to due course to the petition for review or not. 

The procedure taken after the perfection of an appeal under Rule 41 also significantly differs from that taken under Rule 42. Under Section 10 of Rule 41, the clerk of court of the RTC is burdened to immediately undertake the transmittal of the records by verifying the correctness and completeness of the records of the case; the transmittal to the CA must be made within 30 days from the perfection of the appeal. ¹⁸ This requirement of transmittal of the records does not arise under Rule 42, except upon order of the CA when deemed necessary. ¹⁹

As borne out in the foregoing, the petitioners' resort to the petition for review under Rule 42 was wrong. Hence, the CA did not err in denying due course to the petition for review. CA IS AFFIRMED.