BERSAMIN CASES

REMEDIAL LAW

A SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION MAY BE ALLOWED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE

RULE WHEN A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND ADMIT A SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED BY THE SUPREME COURT

LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COMELEC

Facts:
Court En Banc granted and struck down the Cityhood laws as unconstitutional. Court EB then denied
both first and second MRs. Respondent filed leave to file and admit a second MR which was granted by
the Court EB.

Issue:
Did the Court commit a procedural effort by granting the second motion for reconsideration despite of it
being considered as a prohibited pleading?

Ruling:
When a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for reconsideration is granted by the Court, the
Court therefore allows the filing of the second motion for reconsideration, thus, it is no longer a prohibited
pleading.

APPEAL IS A STATUTORY PRIVILEGE TO BE ENJOYED BY LITIGANTS WHO COMPLY WITH THE

LAW ALLOWING THE APPEAL

YINLU BICOL MINING CORP. VS. TRANS-ASIA OOIL AND ENERGY DEVT CORP

Facts:
Yinlu and TA had a dispute over mining claims which was raised to the DENR.
SENR issued order in yinlus favor
TA filed an MR denied
TA appeal to OP dismissed, affirmed SENR order
TA filed 1st and 2nd MR denied
TA filed appeal to CA granted
Yinlu filed MR Denied

Issue:
Should the receipt of the order denying the first MR be the reckoning point of the 15 day period to
appeal?

Ruling:
Yes.
4.43 the reckoning of the 15 day period to perfect an appeal starts from the receipt of the resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration.

PERFECTION OF AN APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN BY LAW IS MANDATORY AND
JURISDICTIONAL

SPOUSES ELBE LEBIN AND ERLINDA LEBIN VS. VILMA S. MIRASOL

MJND #BGTF2017 Page 1

Facts:
Spouses Lebin & Mirasol both offered to purchase a certain lot in Iloilo. The RTC approved the offer to
purchase of Spouses Lebin. Mirasol filed a petition for relief. Pending the resolution, the Lebins paid the
total purchase price. The RTC then resolved that the subject property be divided into two equal portions.

Lebins filed MR and new trial denied by RTC

Lebins filed notice of appeal and record on appeal
Mirasol filed a motion to dismiss the appeal granted by RTC
Lebins MR denied by RTC
Mirasol appeal to SC via petition for Certiorari

Issue:
Did the RTC err in dismissing the Petitioners appeal for their failure to timely file a record on appeal?

Ruling:
No. ROC 13.41 empowers the RTC as a trial court to dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of
time or for non-payment of the docket or the other lawful fees within the reglementary period.

The failure to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the ROC causes the judgment or order to
become final.

AN ORDINARY APPEAL SHALL BE TAKEN TO CA TO APPEAL THE DECISIONS OF THE

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

HEIRS OF ARTURO GARCIA I VS. MUNICIPALITY OF IBA, ZAMBALES

Facts:
Bueno filed an ejectment suit against the Municipality of Iba in the MTC.

MTC ruled in favor of Bueno

Municipality filed notice of appeal denied by MTC
Municipality petition for certiorari in RTC granted by RTC
Heirs filed MR denied by RTC
Heirs Petition for Review (CA) dismissed by CA

Issue:
May a petition for review under r42 inappropriately filed be allowed if there is substantial compliance with
the requirements of an ordinary appeal under r41?

Ruling:
No.

ROC 2(a).41: an ordinary appeal shall be taken by filing of a notice of appeal to the CA in cases decided
by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

R41: exists as a matter of right after the trial in the first instance
R42: exists as a matter of discretion may be disallowed by the superior court in its discretion

THE DISMISSAL BY THE CA OF AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS
PROPER WHEN THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE PURELY LEGAL QUESTIONS

ANTONIO ESCOTO VS. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION

Facts:
Petitioners obtained a permit to hold a cockfighting derby. Respondents advised Petitioners to desist.
Petitioners filed suit for injunction/TRO/prelinj with RTC 20 day TRO issued by RTC

MJND #BGTF2017 Page 2

Respondents objected to issuance of TRO
RTC dismissed complaint
Petitioner appealed before CA
Respondents filed MTD as issues raised by Petitioner were legal in nature
CA dismissed appeal
Petitioner filed MR denied

ISSUE:
Is the dismissal of the CA of an appeal from the decision of the trial court proper when issues involved are
purely legal questions?

HELD:
Yes, the dismissal of the CA from the decision of the trial court is proper when issues involved are purely
legal questions.

ROC 2.50:
An appeal under R41 taken from RTC to CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues
purely of law not being reviewable by said court.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IN SPECIAL

PROCEEDINGS WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE

NILO CHIPONGAN VS. VICTORIA BENITEZ-LIRIO

Facts:
Specpro case for settlement of estate was filed with the RTC. Petitioner intervened and moved for
exclusion of Isabels paraphernal properties. Petitioner withdrew motion before RTC could rule on it.
Petitioner filed Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit Complaint-in-Intervention granted by RTC
RTC dismissed Complaint-in-Intervention P filed MR denied
P filed notice of appeal denied by RTC P filed MR denied for lack of payment of docket fees

Issue:
Is the dismissal of the CA valid on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of the right to
appeal in specpro cases?

Ruling:
Yes.

Proper mode: notice of appeal AND record on appeal

ROC 3.41: a party who wants to appeal a judgment or final order in specpro has 30 days from notice of
judgment or final order within which to perfect an appeal because he will be filing not only a notice of
appeal but also a record on appeal that will require the approval of the trial court with notice to the
adverse party.

APPEAL TO THE CA UNDER R.43 IS A DISCRETIONARY MODE OF APPEAL THUS ALL THE
MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR SUCH DETERMINATION MUST BE PRESENT

JUSTINA MANIEBO VS. CA & CSC

Facts:
Maniebo dismissed by CSC
CSC charged and found Maniebo guilty
Petitioner filed appeal to CA under R43 dismissed by CA for failure to attach requisite certified true
copies of the material portions of the record

MJND #BGTF2017 Page 3

Issue:
Did the CA commit reversible error in dismissing petitioners petition for review for failure to attach
certified copy of the annexes?

Ruling:
No.

ROC 6.43: Requires the petition for review to be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a
certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified
true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers.

A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS NOT INTENDED TO CORRECT EVERY CONTROVERSIAL

INTERLOCUTORY RULING UNLESS ATTENDED BY GAD

JOWETT GOLANGCO VS. JONE FUNG

Facts:
Jowett filed a case for libel against

MJND #BGTF2017 Page 4