Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:
The National Housing Authority
(NHA), a government-owned and controlled corporation, is exempt from
paying
appellate docket fees when it sues or is sued in relation to its
governmental
function of providing mass housing. It is likewise exempt from filing a
supersedeas bond that will stay the execution of a forcible entry case.
In order to have some bases for fixing the reasonable amount of rent in
a forcible entry case, courts must rely on the evidence presented by
the
parties.
The Case
Before us are two (2)
consolidated Petitions for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
seeking to set aside two rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Malolos,
Bulacan. The first one is the July 19, 2000 Order[1]
issued by Branch 79 in Case No. P-410-M-2000, annulling both the May
23,
2000 Order[2]
and the May 30, 2000 Writ of Execution[3]
issued by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan.
The dispositive portion of this assailed RTC Order reads as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE, the Order
of the triaI court dated May 23, 2000 is hereby annulled.cralaw:red
"The Writ of Execution
issued by the clerk of court of the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose
del
Monte Bulacan is also annulled.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Prohibiting the trial
court from enforcing the Writ; and commanding the Municipal Trial Court
to transmit the records of the case to the Regional Trial Court of
Bulacan
together with the Money Order of [t]wo hundred pesos Annex ‘I’ and
‘1-2’
as appellate docket fee and the alleged Supersedeas Bond per [Annex]
‘A’,
‘A-1’, ‘A-2’ to ‘A-3’ of the OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CLARIFY (with
manifestation)
filed by Petitioner NHA received by this [C]ourt on July 17, 2000
although
dated July 14, 2000."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The second ruling being
contested is the October 23, 2000 Decision[5]
of Branch 11 in Civil Case No. 512-M-2000, which modified the February
1, 2000 Decision[6]
of the MTC of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. The challenged RTC Decision
disposed as follows:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE, the
appealed
decision is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as defendants are ordered to vacate
plaintiffs’ property and return the possession thereof to the latter
and
to pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally P20,000.00 for attorney’s fees
and P20,000.00 for litigation expenses and to pay the costs are
concerned."[7]
Since the parties were
the same and the issues related, the two Petitions were consolidated by
this Court in its Resolution of October 17, 2001.[8]
The Facts
Petitioners are plaintiffs
in a forcible entry/ejectment case docketed as Civil Case No. 263-94 in
the MTC of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, entitled "Spouses Oscar and
Haydee
Badillo v. Triad Construction and Development Corporation and National
Housing Authority." In its February 1, 2000 Decision,[9]
the MTC ordered the NHA to vacate the disputed land; to return
possession
thereof to petitioners; to pay rental for its use and occupation at the
rate of P10 per square meter per month; and to shoulder the attorney’s
fees, the litigation expenses and the costs of suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The disputed parcel
of land was part of the Bagong Silang Resettlement Project (BSRP) of
the
NHA. The NHA contended that the property was part of the Tala Estate
and
was among the 598 hectares reserved by the government for its housing
resettlement
site, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 843 issued by then
President
Ferdinand E. Marcos on April 26, 1971.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In June 1994, the NHA
offered for bidding the development of certain portions of the BSRP. It
eventually contracted with the Triad Construction and Development
Corporation
("Triad") for the development of parts of the site. These were then
developed
and subdivided into smaller lots that were allocated, awarded and
distributed
by the NHA to qualified beneficiaries.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, petitioners
claimed that they were the owners and exclusive possessors of a portion
of the land that had been awarded by the NHA to Triad. They argued that
the NHA intruded on, occupied and developed their property despite
their
protests.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon receipt of the
February 1, 2000 Decision of the MTC, the NHA filed a Notice of Appeal[10]
with the same court on February 24, 2000. The NHA, however, did not pay
the appellate docket fees within the reglementary period. Consequently,
petitioners filed with that court a Motion for the immediate issuance
of
a writ of execution and demolition.[11]
They contended that because of the NHA’s failure to pay the appellate
docket
fees within the prescribed period, the MTC Decision became final.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a hearing on
the Motion, the MTC promulgated an Order on May 23, 2000, authorizing
the
issuance of a writ of execution in favor of petitioners:
"For failure of the
National Housing Authority to comply with the requirements laid down
under
Section 5 of Rule 40 as regards the payment of docket fee and for its
failure
to comply with Section 19 of Rule 70 in regard to the payment of the
supersedeas
bond, the execution of the judgment rendered in this case has become a
ministerial duty of the court in view of the mandatory nature of said
requirements.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Let therefore, a writ
of execution be issued immediately against the defendants."[12]
Thereafter, the Writ
of Execution[13]
was actually issued by the MTC on May 30, 2000. Pursuant thereto, the
sheriff[14]
served a Notice of Garnishment of NHA’s funds in the Landbank of the
Philippines.
The bank, however, refused to release the garnished amount.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 9, 2000, the
NHA filed a Motion to set aside the Writ of Execution and the Notice of
Garnishment.[15]
The Motion was, however, denied by the MTC in its June 23, 2000 Order.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The NHA paid the appellate
dockets fees only on June 29, 2000 -- four months late. It
simultaneously
filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and Injunction[17]
before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, assailing the MTC’s May 23, 2000
Order
and May 30, 2000 Writ of Execution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Acting on the NHA Petition,
RTC Executive Judge Danio A. Manalastas issued a 72-hour Temporary
Restraining
Order.[18]
Thereafter, the case was assigned to RTC Branch 79, which issued the
first
assailed July 19, 2000 Order annulling the Writ. After declaring that
the
NHA had been able to perfect its appeal on time, the RTC ordered the
MTC
to transmit the records of the case for appropriate appellate
proceedings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon transmittal of
the records from the MTC, the case was raffled to RTC Branch 11, which
issued the second assailed October 23, 2000 Decision. This Decision was
appealed by the NHA to the Court of Appeals (CA). The appeal, docketed
as CA-GR No. 61981, is still pending resolution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rulings of the RTC
The NHA was able to
perfect its appeal on time despite its nonpayment of appellate docket
fees,
according to the ruling of RTC Branch 79. The NHA as a government-owned
corporation was presumed to be always solvent and thus exempt from
filing
a supersedeas bond, which would stay the immediate execution of a
forcible
entry case. With the perfection of the appeal, the MTC lost
jurisdiction
to issue and enforce the Writ of Execution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Partly affirming the
MTC, RTC Branch 11 held that petitioners were entitled to the right of
possession of the property and to the award of damages, but that the
grant
of rental was baseless.cralaw:red
Hence, this recourse.[19]
Issues
Petitioners raise the
following issues for our consideration:
I
"Whether or not the
Order of Respondent Judge Gabo deleting the payment of rentals for the
use and occupation of the lot in question is in accordance with law and
existing jurisprudence on the matter"[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
"Whether or not NHA
perfected its appeal to the RTC Bulacan despite failure to pay the
docket/appeal
fee within the 15 day period provided for in Section 5, Rule 40 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Ill
"Whether or not the
NHA being a government corporation is exempt from the posting of the
supersedeas
bond to stay execution as provided for in Section 19, Rule 70 of the
1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IV
"Whether or not RTC
Bulacan was correct in annulling the Order dated May 23, 2000; the Writ
of Execution and the Notice of Garnishment issued by MTC, Bulacan"[21]
These issues can be
more clearly restated thus:
(1) Is the
failure of the NHA to pay the appellate docket fee within the
fifteen-day
reglementary period a ground to dismiss its appeal?
(2) Is the NHA
exempt
from filing the supersedeas bond in order to stay the execution of the
MTC judgment?
(3) Was it proper
for
RTC Branch 11 to delete the rentals awarded by the MTC?
Ruling of
the
Court
The Petitions are unmeritorious.cralaw:red
First Issue:
Payment of Appellate Docket Fees
Created by virtue of
PD No. 757,[22]
the NHA is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an
original
charter. As a general rule, however, such corporations -- with or
without
independent charters -- are required to pay legal fees under Section 21
of Rule 141 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"SEC. 21. Government
Exempt. - The Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities,
are exempt from paying the legal fees provided in this rule. Local
governments
and government-owned or controlled corporations with or without
independent
charters are not exempt from paying such fees."[23]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand,
the NHA contends that it is exempt from paying all kinds of fees and
charges,
because it performs governmental functions. It cites Public Estates
Authority
v. Yujuico,[24]
which holds that the Public Estates Authority (PEA), a government-owned
and controlled corporation, is exempt from paying docket fees whenever
it files a suit in relation to its governmental functions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree. People’s Homesite
and Housing Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations[25]
declares that the provision of mass housing is a governmental function:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Coming now to the
case at bar, We note that since 1941 when the National Housing
Commission
(predecessor of PHHC, which is now known as the National Housing
Authority
[NHA] was created, the Philippine government has pursued a mass housing
and resettlement program to meet the needs of Filipinos for decent
housing.
The agency tasked with implementing such governmental program was the
PHHC.
These can be gleaned from the provisions of Commonwealth Act 648, the
charter
of said agency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"We rule that the PHHC
is a governmental institution performing governmental functions.cralaw:red
"This is not the first
time We are ruling on the proper characterization of housing as an
activity
of the government. In the 1985 case of National Housing Corporation v.
Juco and the NLRC (No. L-64313, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 172), We
ruled
that housing is a governmental function."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While it has not always
been easy to distinguish governmental from proprietary functions, the
Court’s
declaration in the Decision quoted above is not without basis. Indeed,
the characterization of governmental functions has veered away from the
traditional constituent-ministrant classification that has become
unrealistic,
if not obsolete.[26]
Justice Isagani A. Cruz avers: "[I]t is now obligatory upon the State
itself
to promote social justice,[27]
to provide adequate social services to promote a rising standard of
living,[28]
to afford protection to labor to formulate and implement urban and
agrarian
reform programs, and to adopt other measures intended to ensure the
dignity,
welfare and security of its citizens. x x x. These functions,
while
traditionally regarded as merely ministrant and optional, have been
made
compulsory by the Constitution."[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In addition, the NHA
is mandated by PD No. 757 to develop and implement a comprehensive,
integrated
housing program[30]
for the greatest number of people.[31]
Thus, to be able to perform its governmental functions, the housing
agency
is vested with sovereign powers. Such powers include, among others, the
exercise of the right of eminent domain or the right to acquire by
purchase
privately owned lands for purposes of housing development,
resettlement,
and related services and facilities.[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, under the
Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, the NHA, in cooperation with
other government units and agencies, is mandated to identify and
acquire
lands for socialized housing for the underprivileged and the homeless.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Notably, it was in its
performance of this governmental function to provide mass housing that
the NHA was sued by petitioners.cralaw:red
Perfection of
the Appealchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the RTC
that, insofar as appeals from the MTC to the RTC are concerned, the
1997
Rules of Civil Procedure do not mandate the dismissal of an appeal as a
consequence of the nonpayment of the required fee.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Martinez v. Court of
Appeals[34]
holds that in such appeals, "the failure to pay the appellate docket
fees
does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal, the
dismissal
being discretionary on the part of the appellate court." While that
case
was governed by Sections 20[35]
and 23[36]
of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by the Court on January 11,
1983 to implement the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981 (BP Blg.
129),
the present Rules lead to a similar conclusion.cralaw:red
Under the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, parties perfect an appeal from the judgment of the
MTC to the RTC by filing a notice of appeal within the fifteen day
reglementary
period, as provided under Section 4 of Rule 40 and Section 9 of Rule 41:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 40 --
"SEC. 4. Perfection
of appeal; effect thereof. - The perfection of the appeal and the
effect
thereof shall be governed by the provisions of section 9, Rule 41.cralaw:red
Rule 41--
"SEC. 9. Perfection
of appeal; effect thereof. - A party’s appeal by notice of appeal is
deemed
perfected as to him upon filing of the notice of appeal in due time.cralaw:red
xxx
xxx
xxx
"In appeals by notice
of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the
perfection
of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to
appeal
of the other party."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fontanar v. Bonsubre[37]
is a case in point. It holds that in appeals from the MTC to the RTC,
failure
to pay the appellate docket fee within the fifteen-day reglementary
period
bestows on the appellate court a directory, not a mandatory, power to
dismiss
an appeal. The Court ratiocinated as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x x x This Court restated
the importance and real purpose of the remedy of appeal as an essential
part of our judicial system and advised the courts to proceed with
caution
so as not to deprive a party of a right to appeal with the instruction
that every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity
for
the proper and just disposition if his cause, freed from the
constraints
of technicalities. Rightly so, for the payment of the appellate docket
fee is not a requirement for the protection of the prevailing party,
and
non-compliance therewith within the time prescribed causes no
substantial
prejudice to anyone."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, the
cases cited by petitioners involve appeals -- not from the MTC to the
RTC
-- but from the RTC to the CA and from the CA to the SC, for which the
payment of appellate fees is indeed mandatory according to the Rules.[38]
We quote Manalili v. Arsenio and De Leon:[39]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Appeal is not a right,
but a mere statutory privilege. Corollary to this principle is that the
appeal must be exercised strictly in accordance with provisions set by
law. x x x
"x x x [T]he payment
of the appellate docket fee is not a mere technicality of law or
procedure.
It is an essential requirement, without which the decision or final
order
appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal was
filed
at all."[40]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the instant cases,
when the NHA filed a Notice of Appeal on February 22, 2000 -- two days
before the appeal period lapsed - it perfected its appeal and the MTC
thereby
lost its jurisdiction. The MTC therefore acted without jurisdiction in
issuing the May 23, 2000 Order and the May 30, 2000 Writ of Execution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second Issue:
The Filing of a Supersedeas Bond
There is a rationale
for requiring a losing party to file a supersedeas bond in order to
stay
the immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case. Such bond
is
required to assure the payment of damages to the winning party in case
the appeal is found frivolous.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the present cases,
the posting of a supersedeas bond is not necessary to stay the
execution
of the MTC Order. When a case involves provable rents or damages
incurred
by a government-owned or controlled corporation, the real party in
interest
is the Republic of the Philippines. When the State litigates, it is not
required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond -- either
directly or indirectly through its authorized officers -- because it is
presumed to be always solvent.[41]
Thus, it would be unnecessary
to ask the NHA to file a bond because to do so would be to indirectly
require
the government to submit the bond. And the State is not required to
file
a bond for the obvious reason that it is capable of paying its
obligation.[42]
In any event, the NHA has already paid the appellate docket fees and
filed
the supersedeas bond as ordered by the RTC, albeit late.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third Issue:
The Award of Rentalschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Citing Sia v. Court
of Appeals,[43]
petitioners argue that the MTC may take judicial notice of the
reasonable
rental or the general price increase of land in order to determine the
amount of rent that may be awarded to them. In that case, however, this
Court relied on the CA’s factual findings, which were based on the
evidence
presented before the trial court. In determining reasonable rent, the
RTC
therein took account of the following factors: 1) the realty assessment
of the land, 2) the increase in realty taxes, and 3) the prevailing
rate
of rentals in the vicinity. Clearly, the trial court relied, not on
mere
judicial notice, but on the evidence presented before it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, courts may fix
the reasonable amount of rent for the use and occupation of a disputed
property. However, petitioners herein erred in assuming that courts, in
determining the amount of rent, could simply rely on their own
appreciation
of land values without considering any evidence. As we have said
earlier,
a court may fix the reasonable amount of rent, but it must still base
its
action on the evidence adduced by the parties.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Herrera v. Bollos,[44]
the trial court awarded rent to the defendants in a forcible entry
case.
Reversing the RTC, this Court declared that the reasonable amount of
rent
could be determined not by mere judicial notice, but by supporting
evidence:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x x x. A court cannot
take judicial notice of a factual matter in controversy. The court may
take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or which are
capable
of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because
of their judicial functions. Before taking such judicial notice, the
court
must ‘allow the parties to be heard thereon.’ Hence, there can be no
judicial
notice on the rental value of the premises in question without
supporting
evidence.[45]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the instant cases,
the RTC has already declared that there is no evidence on record to
support
the MTC’s award of rent. We find no cogent reason to disturb this
pronouncement.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, the belated
prayer of the NHA for the dismissal of the forcible entry case cannot
be
granted, because it appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, not to this
Court.
As a mere respondent in these appealed cases, the NHA is not entitled
to
any affirmative relief. Besides, we would not want to preempt the CA’s
action on the said appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Petitions
are hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioners.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J.,
(Chairman),
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
See pp. 24-39 of the rollo in GR No. 143976; penned by Judge Arturo G.
Tayag.
[2]
Id., p. 51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., pp. 52-54.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Assailed RTC Order, p. 16; page 39 of the rollo in GR No. 143973.
[5]
Penned by Judge Basilio Gabo Jr.; see pp. 17-19 of the rollo in GR No.
145846.
[6]
Written by Judge Aznar D. Lindayag; pp. 20-30 of the rollo in GR No.
145846.
[7]
Id., p. 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
October 17, 2001 Resolution; id., p. 111.
[9]
GR No. 143976; rollo, pp. 40-50.
[10]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 280-281.
[11]
Id., pp. 292-294.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
GR No. 143976; rollo, p. 51.
[13]
Id., pp. 52-54.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Benjamin C. Hao; id., p. 55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 364-367.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
GR No. 143976; rollo, pp. 59-60.
[17]
Records, Vol. III, pp. 1-32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Dated June 29, 2000; records, Vol. III, pp. 64-65.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
This case was deemed submitted for decision on December 18, 2001, upon
receipt by this Court of respondents’ Memorandum signed by Mario P.
Escobar,
Ma. Magdalena T. de Leon-Siacon and Jose M. Manuel Jr. of the Legal
Department
of the NHA. Petitioners’ Memorandum, signed by Walter T. Young, was
received
by this Court on November 26, 2001.
[20]
See Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 5; GR No. 145846; rollo, p. 116.
Original
in upper case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
See Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 6-7; GR No. 143976; rollo, pp.
131-132.
Original in upper case.
[22]
Entitled "Creating the National Housing Authority and Dissolving the
Existing
Housing Agencies, Defining Its Powers and Functions, Providing Funds
Therefor,
and for Other Purposes"; dated July 31, 1975.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Resolution Amending Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court, issued
in AM No. 00-2-01-SC.
[24]
351 SCRA 280, February 6, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
150 SCRA 296, May 29, 1987, per Cortes, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation v. Court of Industrial
Relations,
150 SCRA 296, May 29, 1987.
[27]
Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 10. "The State shall promote social
justice
in all phases of national development."
[28]
Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 9. "The State shall promote a just and
dynamic
social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the
nation,
free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
improved quality of life for all."
[29]
I. Cruz, Philippine Political Law (1998), pp. 21-22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
"SECTION 1. Housing Program. Pursuant to the mandate of the New
Constitution,
there shall be developed a comprehensive and integrated housing program
which shall embrace, among others, housing development and
resettlement,
sources and schemes of financing, and delineation of government and
private
sector participation x x x."
"SEC
2. Creation of the National Housing Authority. There is hereby created
a government corporation to be known as the National Housing Authority,
hereinafter referred to as ‘Authority,’ to develop and implement the
housing
program above-mentioned. x x x."chan
robles virtual law
[31]
"SEC 3. Purposes and Objectives. The Authority shall have the following
purposes and objectives:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a)
To provide and maintain adequate housing for the greatest possible
number
of people;
(b)
To undertake housing, development, resettlement or other activities as
would enhance the provision of housing to every Filipino;
(c)
To harness and promote private participation in housing ventures in
terms
of capital expenditures, land expertise, financing and other facilities
for the sustained growth of the housing industry."
[32]
"SEC 6. Powers and Functions of the Authority. The Authority shall have
the following powers and functions to be exercised by the Board in
accordance
with the established national human settlements plan prepared by the
Human
Settlements Commission:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxx
xxx xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d)
Exercise the right of eminent domain or acquire by purchase privately
owned
lands for purposes of housing development, resettlement and related
services
and facilities; x x x."
[33]
See Sections 8, 9 and 12 of RA No. 7279.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
358 SCRA 38, May 21, 2001, per Mendoza, J., citing Fontanar v.
Bonsubre,
145 SCRA 663, November 25, 1986; and Del Rosario & Sons Logging
Enterprises,
Inc. v. NLRC, 136 SCRA 669, May 31, 1985.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
"SEC. 20. Procedure for taking appeal.- An appeal from the metropolitan
trial courts, municipal trial courts or municipal circuit trial courts
to the regional ‘trial courts, and from the regional trial courts to
the
Intermediate Appellate Court in actions or proceedings originally filed
in the former shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the
court
that rendered the judgment or order appealed from."
[36]
"SEC. 23. Perfection of appeal.- In cases where appeal is taken, the
perfection
of the appeal shall be upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by
any party."
[37]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
The payment of appellate fees within the 15-day reglementary period is
mandatory for the perfection of all appeal to the CA from a decision of
the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under
Section
8, Rule 42; an appeal from the CA to the Supreme Court is governed by
Section
5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[39]
GR No. 140858, November 27, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Id., pp. 6-7, per Panganiban, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
Araneta v. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328, April 30, 1957.
[42]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
272 SCRA 141, May 5, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
GR No. 138258, January 18, 2002.
[45]
Id., p. 8; per Pardo, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred