Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

for reconsideration.

Neypes has
Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. and established a new rule whereby an
Fairways and Blue-Waters Resort vs. appellant is granted a fresh 15-day period,
Hon. Marietta J. Homena-Valencia
reckoned from receipt of the order
G.R. No. 173942 denying the motion for reconsideration,
June 25, 2008 within which to perfect the appeal.

REPORT THIS AD
Ponente: Carpio Morales, J.:
SUBJECT: FIL-ESTATE argued that since they
1. Remedial Law: “Fresh Period Rule” received the RTC’s order denying their
motion for reconsideration on 11 August
CASE BRIEF 2008-0571
2005, following Neypes, they were
FACTS: entitled to a new 15-day period, i.e., until
26 August 2005 or one (1) day after they
In 1998, NAVAL et. al. filed a case against had posted the full appellate docket fees,
FIL-ESTATE. The RTC rendered a decision to perfect the appeal on August 25, 2005.
in favor of NAVAL of which FIL-ESTATE
moved for reconsideration filed on 10 May ISSUE: Whether the “fresh period” rule
2000, thirteen (13) days after petitioners announced in Neypes could retroactively
received their copy of the RTC’s decision. apply in cases where the period for appeal
On 26 July 2000, the RTC issued an order had lapsed prior to 14 September 2005
denying the motion. Petitioners alleged in when Neypes was promulgated.
their petition that they received the order
RULING:
denying the motion for reconsideration on
11 August 2005. They filed a Notice of Yes. Procedural laws may be given
Appeal on 25 August 2005, or beyond the retroactive effect to actions pending and
reglementary period to perfect the appeal undetermined at the time of their
which is 15 days from receipt of the RTC’s passage, there being no vested rights in
Decision (this is because the 15 day fresh the rules of procedure. Amendments to
period from the denial of the Motion for procedural rules are procedural or
Recosideration or Neypes Doctrine was remedial in character as they do not
promulgated on September 14, 2005). create new or remove vested rights, but
Consequently, the RTC denied the appeal only operate in furtherance of the remedy
and such denial was sustained by the or confirmation of rights already existing.
Supreme Court in its Decision dated
October 15, 2007. ——————————————————–

FIL-ESTATE filed a Motion for THINGS DECIDED:


Reconsideration on November 19, 2007
questioning the October 15, 2007 Decision A) Procedural laws may be given
of the Supreme Court. It argued that retroactive effect to actions pending and
following the Court’s 2005 decision undetermined at the time of their
in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, their Notice passage, there being no vested rights in
of Appeal was perfected on time, that is, the rules of procedure.
within fifteen (15) days from their receipt
B) Procedural rules are remedial in
of the RTC’s order denying their motion
character as they do not create new or
remove vested rights, but only operate in
furtherance of the remedy or confirmation
of rights already existing.