G.R. No. 141524.

 September 14, 2005. *

respondent heirs of del Mundo because the substituted service of
DOMINGO NEYPES, LUZ FAUSTINO, ROGELIO FAUSTINO, summons on them was improper; (2) the Land Bank’s motion to
LOLITO VICTORIANO, JACOB OBANIA AND DOMINGO dismiss for lack of cause of action was denied because there were
CABACUNGAN, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, hypothetical admissions and matters that could be determined only
HEIRS OF BERNARDO DEL MUNDO, namely: FE, CORAZON, after trial, and (3) the motion to dismiss filed by respondent heirs of
JOSEFA, SALVADOR and CARMEN, all surnamed DEL MUNDO, del Mundo, based on prescription, was also denied because there
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HON. ANTONIO N. were factual matters that could be determined only after trial. 1

ROSALES, Presiding Judge, Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Roxas, The respondent heirs filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Oriental Mindoro, respondents. order denying their motion to dismiss on the ground that the trial
court could very well resolve the issue of prescription from the bare
Remedial Law; Appeals; The right to appeal is neither a natural right allegations of the complaint itself without waiting for the trial proper.
nor a part of due process; It is merely a statutory privilege and may be In an order  dated February 12, 1998, the trial court dismissed
2

exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.— petitioners’ complaint on the ground that the action had already
First and foremost, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of prescribed. Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of
due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the dismissal on March 3, 1998 and, on the 15th day thereafter or on
manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to March 18, 1998, filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 1, 1998,
avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules.
the trial court issued another order dismissing the motion for
Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. The period to
appeal is fixed by both statute and procedural rules. reconsideration  which petitioners received on July 22, 1998. Five
3

Same;  Same; An appeal should be taken within 15 days from the days later, on July 27,
_______________
notice of judgment or final order appealed from.—Based on the foregoing, an
appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final
order appealed from. A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of 1
 “Exh. B,” Records, p. 37.
a case, leaving nothing more for the
2
 “Exh. E,” Records, p. 47.
_______________
3
 “Exh. G,” Records, pp. 56-57.

*
 EN BANC. 636
63 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
 
634 6 ANNOTATED
 
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
1998, petitioners filed a notice of appeal  and paid the appeal fees on
4

6 SUPREME COURT August 3, 1998.

34 REPORTS ANNOTATED On August 4, 1998, the court a quo denied the notice of appeal,
holding that it was filed eight days late.  This was received by
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
5

petitioners on July 31, 1998. Petitioners filed a motion for

court to do with respect to it. It is an adjudication on the merits which,
reconsideration but this too was denied in an order dated September
considering the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the
rights and obligations of the parties are; or it may be an order or judgment that 3, 1998. 6

dismisses an action. Via a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the

Same;  Same; Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioners assailed the dismissal of
days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, the notice of appeal before the Court of Appeals.
counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or In the appellate court, petitioners claimed that they had
motion for reconsideration to standardize the appeal periods provided in the seasonably filed their notice of appeal. They argued that the 15-day
Rules.—To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford reglementary period to appeal started to run only on July 22, 1998
litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to
since this was the day they received the final order of the trial court
allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the
Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion denying their motion for reconsideration. When they filed their notice
for a new trial or motion for reconsideration. of appeal on July 27, 1998, only five days had elapsed and they were
well within the reglementary period for appeal. 7

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of On September 16, 1999, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed
Appeals. the petition. It ruled that the 15-day period to appeal should have
been reckoned from March 3, 1998 or the day they received the
February 12, 1998 order dismissing their complaint. According to the
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
appellate court, the order was the
     Romualdo M. Jubay for petitioners. “final order” appealable under the Rules. It held further: Perforce the
     Miguel M. Gonzales, Rosemarie M. Osoteo and Antonio M. petitioners’ tardy appeal was correctly dismissed for the (P)erfection of an
Chua for respondent Land Bank of the Philippines. appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is
     Jose Rico P. Domingo for private respondents. jurisdictional and non-compliance
_______________

CORONA, J.: 4
 “Exh. H,” Records, p. 58.
5
 “Exh. I,” Records, pp. 61-62. The trial court received the notice of appeal dated July 27, 1998 on
July 31, 1998. According to the court, it was eight days late, counted from July 23, 1998, which was the
Petitioners Domingo Neypes, Luz Faustino, Rogelio Faustino, Lolito last day to file the notice since petitioners had one (1) day left to file it.
Victoriano, Jacob Obania and Domingo Cabacungan filed an action 6
 “Exh. K,” Records, pp. 67-69.
 Rollo, p. 41.
for annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or reconveyance
7

and/or reversion with preliminary injunction before the Regional 637

Trial Court, Branch 43, of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, against the
Bureau of Forest Development, Bureau of Lands, Land Bank of the VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 637
Philippines and the heirs of Bernardo del Mundo, namely, Fe, 2005
Corazon, Josefa, Salvador and Carmen.
In the course of the proceedings, the parties (both petitioners and
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
with such legal requirement is fatal and effectively renders the judgment final
respondents) filed various motions with the trial
and executory.
635
8

VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 635 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned
2005 decision. This was denied by the Court of Appeals on January 6,
2000.
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals In this present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules,
court. Among these were: (1) the motion filed by petitioners to petitioners ascribe the following errors allegedly committed by the
declare the respondent heirs, the Bureau of Lands and the Bureau of appellate court:
Forest Development in default and (2) the motions to dismiss filed by I
the respondent heirs and the Land Bank of the Philippines,
respectively.
In an order dated May 16, 1997, the trial court, presided by
public respondent Judge Antonio N. Rosales, resolved the foregoing
motions as follows: (1) the petitioners’ motion to declare respondents
Bureau of Lands and Bureau of Forest Development in default was
granted for their failure to file an answer, but denied as against the
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE Based on the foregoing, an appeal should be taken within 15 days
PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from. A final
IN AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE HON. JUDGE ANTONIO N. judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving
ROSALES WHICH DISMISSED THE PETITIONERS’ APPEAL IN CIVIL
nothing more for the court to do with respect to it. It is an
CASE NO. C-36 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43,
ROXAS, ORIENTAL MINDORO, EVEN AFTER THE PETITIONERS adjudication on the merits which, considering the evidence presented
HAD PAID THE APPEAL DOCKET FEES. at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of
the parties are; or it may be an order or judgment that dismisses an
II action. 12

As already mentioned, petitioners argue that the order of July 1,

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN 1998 denying their motion for reconsideration should be construed as
RULING AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OR ORDER OF THE the “final order,” not the February 12, 1998 order which dismissed
RESPONDENT HON. ANTONIO M. ROSALES THAT PETITIONERS’ their complaint. Since they received their copy of the denial of their
APPEAL WAS FILED OUT OF TIME WHEN PETITIONERS RECEIVED motion for reconsideration only on July 22, 1998, the 15-day
THE LAST OR FINAL ORDER OF THE COURT ON JULY 22, 1998 AND reglementary period to appeal had not yet lapsed when they filed
FILED THEIR NOTICE OF APPEAL ON JULY 27, 1998 AND PAID THE their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998.
APPEAL DOCKET FEE ON AUGUST 3, 1998. What therefore should be deemed as the “final order,” receipt of
which triggers the start of the 15-day reglementary period to appeal—
III the February 12, 1998 order dismissing the complaint or the July 1,
1998 order dismissing the MR?
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FURTHER ERRED IN _______________
RULING THAT THE WORDS “FINAL ORDER” IN SECTION 3, RULE
41, OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WILL 12
 Intramuros Tennis Club, Inc. (ITC), et al. v. Philippine Tourism Authority, et
_______________ al., G.R. No. 135630, 26 September 2000, 341 SCRA 90.

8
 Penned by Justice Roberto A. Barrios and concurred in by Justices Godardo O. Jacinto and 640
Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. of the 16th Division.
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
638
0 ANNOTATED
63 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
8 ANNOTATED In the recent case of Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc.,  the trial court
13

Neypes vs. Court of Appeals declared petitioner Quelnan non-suited and accordingly dismissed his
REFER TO THE [FIRST] ORDER OF RESPONDENT JUDGE HON. complaint. Upon receipt of the order of dismissal, he filed an
ANTONIO M. MORALES DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1998 INSTEAD OF omnibus motion to set it aside. When the omnibus motion was filed,
THE LAST AND FINAL ORDER DATED JULY 1, 1998 COPY OF 12 days of the 15-day period to appeal the order had lapsed. He later
WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS THROUGH COUNSEL ON on received another order, this time dismissing his omnibus motion.
JULY 22, 1998. He then filed his notice of appeal. But this was likewise dismissed—
for having been filed out of time.
IV. The court a quo ruled that petitioner should have appealed within
15 days after the dismissal of his complaint since this was the final
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FINALLY ERRED IN order that was appealable under the Rules. We reversed the trial court
FINDING THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DENSO, INC. v. and declared that it was the denial of the motion for
IAC, 148 SCRA 280, IS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE
THEREBY IGNORING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND
reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint which
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND THE FACT THAT THE SAID constituted the final order as it was what ended the issues raised
DECISION WAS RENDERED PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE there.
1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 9 This pronouncement was reiterated in the more recent case
of Apuyan v. Haldeman, et al.  where we again considered the order
14

The foregoing issues essentially revolve around the period within denying petitioner Apuyan’s motion for reconsideration as the final
which petitioners should have filed their notice of appeal. order which finally disposed of the issues involved in the case.
First and foremost, the right to appeal is neither a natural right Based on the aforementioned cases, we sustain petitioners’ view
nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may that the order dated July 1, 1998 denying their motion for
be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the reconsideration was the final order contemplated in the Rules.
provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal We now come to the next question: if July 1, 1998 was the start
must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so of the 15-day reglementary period to appeal, did petitioners in fact
often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.  The period to appeal is
10
file their notice of appeal on time?
fixed by both statute and procedural rules. BP 129,  as amended, 11
Under Rule 41, Section 3, petitioners had 15 days from notice of
provides: judgment or final order to appeal the decision of the trial court. On
Sec. 39. Appeals.—The period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, the 15th day of the original appeal period (March 18, 1998),
awards, judgments, or decisions of any court in all these cases shall be fifteen petitioners did not file a notice of appeal but instead opted to file a
(15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, motion for reconsideration. Accord-
judgment, or decision appealed from. Provided, however, That in habeas _______________
corpus cases, the period for appeal shall be (48) forty-eight hours from the
notice of judgment appealed from. x x x 13
 G.R. No. 145911, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 631.
14
 G.R. No. 129980, September 20, 2004, 438 SCRA 402.
_______________
641
 Rollo, p. 12.
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 641
9

 M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Zenaida Villanueva, G.R. No. 136477,

10

November 10, 2004, 441 SCRA 525.

 The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
11
2005
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
639
ing to the trial court, the MR only interrupted the running of the 15-
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 639 day appeal period.  It ruled that petitioners, having filed their MR on
15

2005 the last day of the 15-day reglementary period to appeal, had only
one (1) day left to file the notice of appeal upon receipt of the notice
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals of denial of their MR. Petitioners, however, argue that they were
Rule 41, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states: entitled under the Rules to a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of
SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal.—The appeal shall be taken within the “final order” or the order dismissing their motion for
fifteen (15) days from the notice of the judgment or final order appealed reconsideration.
from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of
In Quelnan and Apuyan, both petitioners filed a motion for
appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from the notice of
judgment or final order. reconsideration of the decision of the trial court. We ruled there that
The period to appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial they only had the remaining time of the 15-day appeal period to file
or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new the notice of appeal. We consistently applied this rule in similar
trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. (emphasis supplied) cases,  premised on the long-settled doctrine that the perfection of an
16

appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not
only mandatory but also jurisdictional.  The rule is also founded on
17
deep-seated considerations of public policy and sound practice that, The Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in all
at risk of occasional error, the judgments and awards of courts must courts.  It has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal or even establish
26

become final at some definite time fixed by law. 18

new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive
Prior to the passage of BP 129, Rule 41, Section 3 of the 1964 _______________
Revised Rules of Court read:
Sec. 3. How appeal is taken.—Appeal maybe taken by serving upon the  345 Phil. 678; 280 SCRA 444 (1997).
24

adverse party and filing with the trial court within thirty (30) days from  Allied Banking Corp. and Pacita Uy v. Spouses Eserjose, G.R. No 161776,
25

October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA 199.

notice of order or judgment, a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a
 Article VIII, Section 5 (5), 1987 Constitution.
26

record on appeal. The time during which a motion to set aside the judgment
or order or for
_______________ 644
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
15
 Supra.
16
 Bank of America v. Gerochi, G.R. No. 73210, 10 February 1994, 230 SCRA 9; Dayrit v. 4 ANNOTATED
Philippine Bank of Communications, 435 Phil. 120; 386 SCRA 117 (2002); Gallego v. Spouses
Galang, G.R. No. 130228, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 275. Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
17
 BPI Data Systems Corp. v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 324
Phil. 267; 254 SCRA 56 (1996). process, and the speedy disposition of cases. In the rules governing
18
 Borre v. Court of Appeals, No. L-57204, 14 March 1988, 158 SCRA 561. appeals to it and to the Court of Appeals, particularly Rules
42,  43  and 45,  the Court allows extensions of time, based on
27 28 29

642
justifiable and compelling reasons, for parties to file their appeals.
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS These extensions may consist of 15 days or more.
2 ANNOTATED To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to
afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the
new trial has been pending shall be deducted, unless such motion fails to notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of
satisfy the requirements of Rule 37. the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
But where such motion has been filed during office hours of the last day
reconsideration.  30

of the period herein provided, the appeal must be perfected within the day
following that in which the party appealing received notice of the denial of Henceforth, this “fresh period rule” shall also apply to Rule 40
said motion.  (emphasis supplied)
19
governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional
Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial
According to the foregoing provision, the appeal period previously Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-
consisted of 30 days. BP 129, however, reduced this appeal period to judicial agencies  to the Court of Appeals
31

_______________
15 days. In the deliberations of the Committee on Judicial
Reorganization  that drafted BP 129, the raison d’etre behind the
20

 Petition for Review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals.
amendment was to shorten the period of appeal  and enhance the
27

21

 Appeals from (the Court of Tax Appeals and) Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the
28

efficiency and dispensation of justice. We have since required strict Court of Appeals. RA 9282 elevated the Court of Tax Appeals to the level of a collegiate
observance of this reglementary period of appeal. Seldom have we court with special jurisdiction.
condoned late filing of notices of appeal,  and only in very 22
 Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court.
29

 Rule 22, Section 1. How to compute time—In computing any period of time
30

exceptional instances to better serve the ends of justice. prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable
In National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority and Authority statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run
v. Municipality of Libmanan,  however, we declared
23
is to be excluded and the date of performance included x x x. (1997 Rules of Civil
_______________ Procedure).
 Before the effectivity of RA 9282 (AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION
31

OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS [CTA], ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE

 Appeals from the Court of First Instance (now RTC) and the Social Security
19
LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND
Commission to the Court of Appeals. ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP) on March 30, 2004, decisions or rulings of the CTA
 Created by virtue of Executive Order No. 611.
20
were appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
 MR. MILLORA: Mr. Speaker, although I am a Member of the committee I have
21
Procedure. With the passage of the new law, Section 19 thereof provides that a party
been granted permission to ask questions about some unresolved matters and I would like adversely affected by a decision or
to begin with the period of appeal.
Under Section 39, Mr. Speaker, the period for appeal from final orders, resolutions,
645
awards, judgments or decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen days. This is very
good because it will shorten the period to appeal. Under our rules today, the period to VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 645
appeal is 30 days. x x x
(February 2, 1981, Record of the Batasan, Volume IV, p. 2004.) 2005
 Ramos v. Bagasao, No. L-51552, 28 February 1980, 96 SCRA 395; Republic v.
22

Court of Appeals, No. L-31303-04, 31 May 1978, 83 SCRA 453; Olacao v. National Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 81390, 29 August 1989, 177 SCRA 38. and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme
 No. L-27197, 28 April 1980, 97 SCRA 138.
Court.  The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period
23

32

643
uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion
for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 643 any final order or resolution.
2005 We thus hold that petitioners seasonably filed their notice of
appeal within the fresh period of 15 days, counted from July 22, 1998
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals (the date of receipt of notice denying their motion for
that appeal is an essential part of our judicial system and the rules of reconsideration). This pronouncement is not inconsistent with Rule
procedure should not be applied rigidly. This Court has on occasion 41, Section 3 of the Rules which states that the appeal shall be taken
advised the lower courts to be cautious about not depriving a party of within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from.
the right to appeal and that every party litigant should be afforded the The use of the disjunctive word “or” signifies disassociation and
amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, independence of one thing from another. It should, as a rule, be
free from the constraint of technicalities. construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies.  Hence, the use33

In Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals,  we stated that, as a rule,

24

of “or” in the above provision supposes that the notice of appeal may
periods which require litigants to do certain acts must be followed be filed within 15 days from the notice of judgment or within 15 days
unless, under exceptional circumstances, a delay in the filing of an from notice of the “final order,” which we already determined to refer
appeal may be excused on grounds of substantial justice. There, we to the July 1, 1998 order denying the motion for a new trial or
condoned the delay incurred by the appealing party due to strong reconsideration.
considerations of fairness and justice. Neither does this new rule run counter to the spirit of Section 39
In setting aside technical infirmities and thereby giving due of BP 129 which shortened the appeal period from 30 days to 15 days
course to tardy appeals, we have not been oblivious to or unmindful to hasten the disposition of cases. The original period of appeal (in
of the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application of the this case March 3-18, 1998) remains and the requirement for strict
Rules. In those situations where technicalities were dispensed with, compliance still applies. The fresh period of 15 days becomes
our decisions were not meant to undermine the force and effectivity significant only when a party opts to file a motion for new trial or
of the periods set by law. But we hasten to add that in those rare cases motion for reconsideration. In
where procedural rules were not stringently applied, there always _______________
existed a clear need to prevent the commission of a grave injustice.
Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc may file with the Supreme Court a
healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws verified petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for Procedure.
 As far as Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition) is
32

the just and proper disposition of his cause. 25

concerned, Section 3 thereof, as amended by SC Adm. Memo. No. 00-2-03, states that no
extension of time shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding
15 days.
 Katindig v. People, 74 Phil. 45 (1942) as cited in Agpalo, Statutory Construction,
33

3rd Edition (1995).

646
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
6 ANNOTATED
Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
this manner, the trial court which rendered the assailed decision is
given another opportunity to review the case and, in the process,
minimize and/or rectify any error of judgment. While we aim to
resolve cases with dispatch and to have judgments of courts become
final at some definite time, we likewise aspire to deliver justice fairly.
In this case, the new period of 15 days eradicates the confusion
as to when the 15-day appeal period should be counted—from receipt
of notice of judgment (March 3, 1998) or from receipt of notice of
“final order” appealed from (July 22, 1998).
To recapitulate, a party litigant may either file his notice of
appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional Trial Court’s
decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order (the “final
order”) denying his motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration. Obviously, the new 15-day period may be availed
of only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final
and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided in
Rule 41, Section 3.
Petitioners here filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998 or
five days from receipt of the order denying their motion for
reconsideration on July 22, 1998. Hence, the notice of appeal was
well within the fresh appeal period of 15 days, as already discussed. 34

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the applicability of Denso

(Philippines), Inc. v. IAC  since the Court of Appeals never even
35

referred to it in its assailed decision.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the
assailed decision of the Court of Appeals REVERSED and
_______________

 Rules of procedure may be applied retroactively to actions pending and

34

undetermined at the time of their passage. (Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil.

289; 363 SCRA 779 [2001] as cited in Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 1995 Edition, p.
294)
 No. L-75000, 27 February 1987, 148 SCRA 280.
35

 
647
 
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 647
2005
People vs. Dimaano
SET ASIDE. Accordingly, let the records of this case be remanded to
the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
     Davide,
Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sando
val-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo,
Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, assailed decision reversed and set aside.