PNB-REPUBLIC BANK v. SPOUSES JOSE and SALVACION CORDOVA

G.R. No. 169314, 14 March 2008, Third Division, (Nachura, J.)

An essential and logical implication of Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court is that the filing of a second notice of appeal from the modified decision is a superfluity, if not a useless ceremony. It, therefore, matters no longer whether that second notice is timely filed or not.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila rendered its decision dismissing the Complaint filed by Petitioner PNB-Republic Bank for the rescission of its Contract of Lease with Respondents Spouses Jose and Salvacion Cordova. The Court, however, granted the counterclaim of Spouses Cordova.

Unsatisfied with the decision, PNB timely filed its first notice of appeal while Spouses Cordova filed their Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC modified its decision and increased the amount of damages awarded to Spouses Cordova. A copy of the modified decision was received by PNB on August 07, 2002 and on August 22, 2002, PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC denied the Motion on September 30 and a copy of the said order was received by PNB on October 14, 2002. PNB filed its second notice of appeal on October 23, 2002, which was later dismissed by the court.

PNB re-filed its appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). Spouses Cordova aver that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that petitioner failed to file its appeal on time. The appellate court dismissed the petition. It held that the first notice of appeal of PNB is invalid and ineffective due to the modified decision of the RTC. It further ruled that the second notice of appeal was not perfected on time.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case and in declaring that the first notice of appeal is ineffective and invalid while the second appeal was not perfected on time

HELD:

Petition GRANTED.

Petitioner’s appeal is deemed perfected “as to [it]” when it timely filed its first notice of appeal, following Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Incidentally, this perfected appeal is not docketed with the CA, because the trial court, which was still to resolve respondents’ motion for reconsideration, had not yet transmitted the records of the case to the appellate court. Incumbent, nonetheless, on the part of the RTC is the elevation of the records after a resolution of the merits of respondents’ motion.

Its appeal having been perfected, petitioner did not need to file a second notice of appeal even if the trial court granted, as it did, the other party’s motion for reconsideration and modified the decision to increase the monetary award.

An essential and logical implication of the said rule is that the filing of a second notice of appeal from the modified decision is a superfluity, if not a useless ceremony. It, therefore, matters no longer whether that second notice is timely filed or not. Hence, in this case, petitioner’s filing of a belated second notice of appeal does not affect or foreclose its already perfected appeal.