View full case

ILUMINADA C. BERNARDO v. ANA MARIE B. SORIANO

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review filed by Iluminada C. Bernardo against Ana Marie B. Soriano, assailing the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The case was originally a petition for habeas corpus filed by Bernardo seeking the release of her minor granddaughter, Stephanie Verniese B. Soriano, who was under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the conversion of the petition into a case for custody and granted temporary custody of the minor to Bernardo for the school year 2009-2010. Soriano, the surviving parent, filed a complaint for custody of her child, leading to a battle for custody between Bernardo and Soriano. The RTC upheld Soriano's right to parental custody but allowed the minor to stay with Bernardo for the meantime. Bernardo filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that Soriano is unfit to take care of the child. The RTC denied Bernardo's motion for reconsideration and her notice of appeal. The RTC issued an order granting partial reconsideration and allowing Soriano to take immediate custody of her child. Bernardo filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Bernardo then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied Bernardo's petition, holding that the RTC's decision was not yet appealable due to the pendency of Soriano's motion for reconsideration. Bernardo filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Hence, the present appeal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a party's right to appeal is dependent on the opposing party's motion for reconsideration.

  2. Whether a party's right to file a motion for reconsideration is hindered by the other party's filing of a notice of appeal.

  3. Whether the petitioner has legal standing to file the petition for certiorari.

  4. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.

RULING:

  1. , 2. The Court held that a party's right to appeal and the right to file a motion for reconsideration are independent of each other. The timely filing of a motion for reconsideration by one party does not interrupt the other party's period of appeal. Each party has a different period within which to appeal. Therefore, a party's ability to file their own appeal within the reglementary period is not affected by the other parties' exercise of discretion to file their respective motions for reconsideration.

  2. The petitioner has legal standing to file the petition for certiorari. The Court held that as a real party-in-interest, the petitioner has a sufficient and personal interest in the outcome of the case, and thus, has standing to question the trial court's decision.

  3. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. The Court found that there was a clear showing that the petitioner has a legal right to protect, which was being violated or threatened to be violated by the respondent. Moreover, the Court held that the trial court correctly applied the criteria in granting the injunctive relief.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case.

  • The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the appeal, specify the judgment or final order appealed from, specify the court to which the appeal is being taken, and state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.

  • The appeal period may be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration.

  • A party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected upon the filing of the notice in due time.

  • The approval of a notice of appeal is a ministerial duty of the lower court, provided the appeal is filed on time.

  • The pendency of another party's motion for reconsideration does not preclude another party from filing their own Notice of Appeal, as long as their own motion for reconsideration has already been denied.

  • A party's right to appeal and the right to file a motion for reconsideration are independent of each other.

  • The timely filing of a motion for reconsideration does not interrupt the other party's period of appeal.

  • Each party has a different period within which to appeal.

  • A party's ability to file their own appeal is not affected by the other parties' exercise of discretion to file their respective motions for reconsideration.

  • Legal standing requires a sufficient and personal interest in the outcome of the case.

  • A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued when there is a clear showing of a legal right to be protected, and that the invasion of such right is violative or threatened to be violative.