Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 519 views

    Lebin v. Mirasol G.R. No. 164255, September 7, 2011 Facts:: Appeals in Special Proceedings

    Uploaded by

    JaylordPataotao
    1) The RTC dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to timely file a record on appeal within 30 days of receiving notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration. 2) The petitioners filed their record on appeal 43 days after receiving notice, which was beyond the 30 day deadline. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the petitioners did not perfect their appeal within the reglementary period as required by the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lebin v. Mirasol G.R. No. 164255, September 7, 2011 Facts:: Appeals in Special Proceedings

    Uploaded by

    JaylordPataotao
    519 views2 pages
    1) The RTC dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to timely file a record on appeal within 30 days of receiving notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration. 2) The petitioners filed their record on appeal 43 days after receiving notice, which was beyond the 30 day deadline. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the petitioners did not perfect their appeal within the reglementary period as required by the rules.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Lebin-v.-Mirasol

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The RTC dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to timely file a record on appeal within 30 days of receiving notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration. 2) The petitioners filed their record on appeal 43 days after receiving notice, which was beyond the 30 day deadline. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the petitioners did not perfect their appeal within the reglementary period as required by the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    519 views2 pages

    Lebin v. Mirasol G.R. No. 164255, September 7, 2011 Facts:: Appeals in Special Proceedings

    Uploaded by

    JaylordPataotao
    1) The RTC dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to timely file a record on appeal within 30 days of receiving notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration. 2) The petitioners filed their record on appeal 43 days after receiving notice, which was beyond the 30 day deadline. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the petitioners did not perfect their appeal within the reglementary period as required by the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Appeals in Special Proceedings

    Lebin v. Mirasol
    G.R. No. 164255, September 7, 2011

    FACTS:
    In Special Proceedings No. 1307 involving the settlement of the estate of the late
    L.J. Hodges, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, in Iloilo City, issued an order
    dated May 3, 1995, ruling that a property of the estate sold to the petitioners be divided
    in two equal portions between the petitioners and the respondent.

    On May 23, 1995, the petitioners moved for reconsideration and/or new trial. On
    March 2, 1998, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration and/or new trial of the
    petitioners. Thus, on March 27, 1998, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal in the RTC.
    Allegedly, on May 5, 1998, they also filed a record on appeal. On January 25, 1999, they
    presented an ex parte motion to approve the record on appeal. On June 15, 2000, Mirasol
    filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, insisting that the record on appeal had been filed
    late. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss the appeal on February 1, 2002. The
    petitioners moved for reconsideration on March 13, 2002, but the RTC denied their motion
    for reconsideration on May 21, 2004.

    Hence, the petitioners appealed via petition for review on certiorari filed on June
    23, 2004, to seek the review and reversal of the orders of the RTC dated February 1,
    2002 and May 21, 2004.

    ISSUE:
    Did the RTC err in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for their failure to timely file a
    record on appeal?

    RULING: No.
    It is stressed that under the 1997 revisions, the timely filing of the motion for
    reconsideration interrupted the running of the period of appeal, pursuant to Section 3,
    Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, which provides that, “the appeal shall be
    taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.
    Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a
    record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order. The
    period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration.
    No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be
    allowed. “
    Petitioners filed the record on appeal 43 days from March 23, 1998, the date they
    received the denial of their motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. They should have
    filed the record on appeal within 30 days from their notice of the judgment.

    The petitioners’ filing of the motion for reconsideration vis-à-vis the order of May
    3, 1995 interrupted the running of the period of 30 days; hence, their period to appeal
    started to run from May 15, 1995, the date they received the order of May 3, 1995. They
    filed their motion for reconsideration on May 24, 1995. By then, nine days out of their 30-
    day period to appeal already elapsed. They received a copy of the order dated March 2,
    1998 on March 23, 1998. Thus, the period to appeal resumed from March 23, 1998 and
    ended 21 days later, or on April 13, 1998. Yet, they filed their record on appeal only on
    May 5, 1998, or 22 days beyond the end of their reglementary period. Thus, their appeal
    was not perfected because their filing of the record on appeal happened beyond the end
    of their period for the perfection of their appeal.

    Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court empowers the RTC as the trial court,
    motu proprio or on motion, to dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of time or for
    non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. For that
    reason, the RTC rightly granted Mirasol’s motion to dismiss the record on appeal.

    You might also like