Spouses De los Santos Vs.

Vda De mangubat
Facts:
-land dispute case. Filed in the RTC of Bulacan
- RTC decided against petitioner on May 3, 2000.
- Petitioner received the decision on May 12, 2000
- May 29, 2000 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration via registered mail
which was denied on July 18,2000
- Only on August 3, 2000 did petitioners receive the denial of the MR
- On August 15, 2000 petititioner filed a notice of appeal however it waws denied on
August 17, 2000 to which the RTC held that it was filed out of time.
- Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA to which on October 27,
2000 it was dismissed on two grounds that first, the verification and the non-forum
shopping certification is signed by petitioners counsel which is proscribed by law;
and second, the petitioners failed to file a Motion for Reconsideration before
resorting to the petition for certiorari. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration
but to no avail. Thus the instant petition.
Ruling:
To deny herein petitioners the benefit of the "fresh period rule" will amount to
injustice, if not absurdity, since the subject notice of judgment and final order were
issued two years later or in the year 2000, as compared to the notice of judgment
and final order in Neypes which were issued in 1998. It will be incongruous and
illogical that parties receiving notices of judgment and final orders issued in the
year 1998 will enjoy the benefit of the "fresh period rule" while those later rulings of
the lower courts such as in the instant case, will not.
Petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal on August 15, 2000 or 12 days from receipt of
the Order denying their motion for reconsideration on August 3, 2000. Hence,
following the "fresh period rule," the notice of appeal filed by petitioners may now
be considered as having been filed well within the fresh period of 15 days.

Fajardo vs. CA
Facts:
- Petitioner engaged the services of respondent in several cases, despite the
successful termination of some, petitioner refuses to pay respondents fees.
- Thus respondent filed for collection of atty fees.
- Petitioner was declared in default to which respondent presented evident ex parte.
- RTC decided in respondents favor on October 15,1997.
- Respondent filed on December 10, 1997 a motion for correction of judgment
WITHOUT a proper notice of hearing, not specify the date and time of the hearing
(MERE SCRAP OF PAPER)
- On February 3, 1998, petitioner, alleging that she received a copy of the trial
court's decision on January 19, 1998, filed a notice of appeal.
- RTC denied the notice of appeal to be premature considering that there is a
pending motion for correction.
- On February 13, 1998 rtc issued an order granting respondents motion for
correction.
- a motion for issuance of a writ of execution was granted on September 28, 1998
-Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of all the orders
issued by the RTC. It was dismissed by the CA.
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the decision of the trial court dated
October 15, 1997 as amended by its order dated February 13, 1998 became final
and executory when petitioner failed to appeal therefrom within the reglementary
period, and subsequently sustaining the validity of the order of execution issued by
the trial court. It appears from the record that petitioner filed a notice of appeal
from the decision of the lower court dated October 15, 1997 on February 3, 1998.
The pendency of petitioner's appeal tolled the finality of the assailed decision.
The court holds that the petitioner timely appealed the case since the motion for
correction of judgment is defective and should be considered a mere scrap of paper
which will not bar petitioner from filing the notice of appeal.

Badillo vs. Tayag

-Petitioner filed a forcible entry/ejectment case against NHA who awarded the
disputed property to Triad Corp after the bidding of the construction.
-February 1, 2000 MTC ordered that NHA vacate the premises and pay the petitioner
rentals
-Upon receipt of the order NHA filed a notice of appeal on February 24, 200 without
however paying the appellate docket fees within the reglementary period.
-Petitioner then filed for execution of judgment contending that the judgment was
final since appeal was not perfected. It was granted.
-June 9, 2000 NHA filed for a motion to set aside the writ of execution but was
denied
- June 29, 2000 (4 months late) NHA paid the appellate docket fees while
simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injuction
before the RTC.
-RTC issued a temporarty restraining order and declared that NHA had been able to
perfect its appeal on time.
Ruling:
The Court ruled (1997 rules of court) 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. 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.
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, while in
the instant petition it is from MTC to RTC which appeal is perfected by SEC 9 RULE
40 A partys appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon filing of
the notice of appeal in due time.