View full case

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. LORENZO L. LAOHOO

FACTS:

The petitioner, National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), filed two complaints before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan, Samar to acquire an easement of right-of-way over the properties of the respondents. The Spouses Laohoo acknowledged petitioner's right to expropriate their property but prayed for payment of just compensation, damages, and attorney's fees. The RTC issued orders directing the Sheriff to place the petitioner in possession of the premises upon deposit of provisional amounts. The Spouses Miel filed a Motion to Dismiss in response. The trial court reduced the provisional amounts of deposit and the petitioner deposited the said amounts. The RTC appointed three commissioners to determine the fair and just compensation due to the respondents. Respondents moved for an increase in the recommended amount, and the trial court granted their motions to withdraw a portion of the deposited amounts. Petitioner filed its Comment and/or Opposition to the commissioners' report, praying for a lower amount of just compensation. The trial court issued orders requiring the petitioner to pay the fixed amount of just compensation, and the petitioner filed Motions for Reconsideration. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's Notices of Appeal and directed the petitioner to deposit the balance of the just compensation with the Philippine National Bank (PNB).

The National Power Corporation (NPC) filed two separate cases before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking the expropriation of properties owned by respondent spouses Laohoo. The RTC issued orders directing NPC to pay just compensation to the respondents. NPC filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal, which respondents opposed for being filed late. The RTC dismissed the appeal and directed NPC to deposit the amounts adjudged as just compensation. When NPC failed to deposit the prescribed amounts, the RTC issued writs of execution and notices of garnishment on NPC's accounts. NPC subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed for being filed out of time. NPC then filed a petition before the Supreme Court, raising arguments on the determination of just compensation and the dismissal of the petition for certiorari on a technicality.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) but it was dismissed for being filed out of time. The RTC found that the petitioner's counsel received the order denying their motion for reconsideration on October 15, 1997. The petitioner failed to disprove this finding. The RTC's order dated September 15, 1997, which fixed the just compensation for the expropriated lots, was considered a final order. The petitioner received a copy of this order on September 25, 1997, and filed a motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1997. The RTC denied the motion in an order dated October 14, 1997. Since the appeal was not filed within the reglementary period of 15 days, the RTC dismissed it. The petitioner's failure to perfect the appeal within the prescribed period rendered the decision final and unalterable. The notice of appeal also failed to indicate the date when the petitioner received the order denying the motion for reconsideration, which is required by the rules.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court committed an error in dismissing the appeal due to the failure to perfect it within the period fixed by law.

  2. Whether the notice of appeal failed to comply with the requirement of indicating the date when the petitioner received the Order denying its motion for reconsideration.

  3. Whether the petitioner failed to pay the appellate court's docket and other lawful fees on time.

  4. Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the trial court was in order due to the failure to pay the docket fees and other lawful fees within the reglementary period.

  5. Whether the filing of a record on appeal was necessary in this case.

  6. Whether the fifteen-day fresh period rule for filing a notice of appeal applies to this case.

  7. Whether the failure of Atty. Cinco to notify the petitioner of the denial of its motion for reconsideration is a ground for setting aside the judgment.

  8. Whether the failure to furnish the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with a copy of the order dismissing the notice of appeal and the order denying the motion for reconsideration affects the running of the appeal period.

  9. Whether the notice of appeal filed by NAPOCOR's special attorneys is binding upon NAPOCOR.

  10. Whether the special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy to question the dismissal of the notice of appeal.

  11. Whether the failure to file the appeal within the reglementary period constitutes a mere technicality or excusable negligence.

  12. Whether the petitioner's failure to promptly act to protect its rights after the dismissal of its notice of appeal affects the disposition of the case.

  13. Whether the petitioner's failure to contest the fixing of the amount of provisional deposits before the proper forum affects the disposition of the case.

RULING:

  1. The trial court committed no error in dismissing the appeal due to the failure to perfect it within the period fixed by law.

  2. The notice of appeal failed to comply with the requirement of indicating the date when the petitioner received the Order denying its motion for reconsideration.

  3. The petitioner failed to pay the appellate court's docket and other lawful fees on time.

  4. The dismissal of the appeal by the trial court was in order due to the failure to pay the docket fees and other lawful fees within the reglementary period.

  5. The filing of a record on appeal was not necessary in this case.

  6. The fifteen-day fresh period rule does not apply to this case. While procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to pending and undetermined actions, this does not extend to actions that have already become final and executory, such as the order of the trial court in this case.

  7. The client is generally bound by the acts, even mistakes, of their counsel. The exception is when the negligence of counsel is gross, reckless, and inexcusable, resulting in the client being deprived of their day in court. The failure of counsel to notify the client on time of an adverse judgment, thus causing the loss of the right to appeal, is negligence that is not excusable. Therefore, the petitioner cannot use the alleged failure of Atty. Cinco to defeat the rules of procedure regarding the timeliness of an appeal.

  8. The failure to furnish the OSG with a copy of the order dismissing the notice of appeal and the order denying the motion for reconsideration does not affect the running of the appeal period. Service on deputized special attorneys of the OSG is considered service to the OSG itself. Since the notice of appeal was filed before the RTC by the NAPOCOR lawyers who were deputized as special attorneys, their action was within their authority and ensured the appeal was filed within the reglementary period.

  9. Yes, the notice of appeal filed by NAPOCOR's special attorneys is binding upon NAPOCOR. The special attorneys had the authority to represent NAPOCOR, and their omission to file the notice of appeal on time cannot be blamed on them. NAPOCOR cannot circumvent the rule on perfection of an appeal by blaming its special attorneys.

  10. No, the special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the dismissal of the notice of appeal. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since an appeal was available to NAPOCOR, the special civil action for certiorari will not prosper.

  11. The failure to file the appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality and does not constitute excusable negligence.

  12. The petitioner's failure to promptly act to protect its rights after the dismissal of its notice of appeal affects the disposition of the case.

  13. The petitioner's failure to contest the fixing of the amount of provisional deposits before the proper forum affects the disposition of the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The failure to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by law renders the decision sought to be appealed final and unalterable, and no court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the decision.

  • The timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional caveat that even the Court cannot disregard.

  • Once a judgment becomes final and executory, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest, and the execution of the decision becomes a matter of right.

  • The notice of appeal should state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal, and the indication of the date is important for the trial court to determine the timeliness of the appeal.

  • The full payment of the appellate court's docket and other lawful fees within the period for taking an appeal is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal, and the failure to pay such fees within the reglementary period may result in the dismissal of the appeal.

  • The filing of a record on appeal is not necessary when the trial court has already fully and finally resolved all conceivable issues in the case, and the original records would already be sent to the appellate court.

  • Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to pending and undetermined actions, but not to actions that have already become final and executory.

  • The client is generally bound by the acts of their counsel, even mistakes, in procedural technique.

  • The failure of counsel to notify the client on time of an adverse judgment, resulting in the loss of the right to appeal, is negligence that is not excusable.

  • Service on deputized special attorneys of the OSG is considered service to the OSG itself.

  • A notice of appeal filed by special attorneys is binding upon the client if the special attorneys have the authority to represent the client.

  • A special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy when an appeal is available.

  • The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period raises a jurisdictional problem and deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal.

  • The right to appeal is a statutory right that must be complied with, including the prescribed periods for perfecting an appeal.

  • Compliance with the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law is mandatory and jurisdictional.

  • The failure to appeal in due time may only amount to excusable negligence in certain circumstances.

  • The doctrine of relaxation of technicalities cannot be applied when the failure to file the appeal in due time does not constitute excusable negligence.

  • Prompt action to protect one's rights is required after the dismissal of a notice of appeal.

  • Failure to contest a ruling before the proper forum may result in the ruling attaining finality and becoming fully executed.