758 Phil. 368
BRION, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:SO ORDERED.[4]
- Ordering the respondents (referring to the petitioners) to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject property in the name of the complainant (referring to the respondent) and deliver the title thereof free from all liens and encumbrances;
- In the alternative, in case of legal and physical impossibility of the respondents to perform the aforementioned acts in the preceding paragraph, respondent San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Incorporated is hereby ordered to reimburse to the complainant the amount of THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE PESOS & 16/100 (P324,865.16) with legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum to be computed from the filing of the complaint on November 04, 2002 until fully paid; and
- Ordering respondent San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Incorporated to pay the following sums:
- FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) as moral damages;
- FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) as exemplary damages;
- FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) as attorney's fees;
- An administrative fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) payable to this Office fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this decision, for violation of Section 18 in relation to Section 38 of PD 957.
A review of the records shows that the HLURB Decision affirming the Arbiter's decision was received by the respondents/appellants (referring to the petitioners) on July 27, 2005. On that date, the 15-day prescriptive period within which to file an appeal began to run. Instead of preparing an appeal, respondents-appellants opted to file a Motion for Reconsideration on August 10, 2005. Their filing of the said motion interrupted the period of appeal by that time, however, fourteen (14) days had already elapsed.
On April 17, 2006, respondents-appellants received the Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration. Following the above rules, respondents-appellants have only one (1) day left, or until April 18, 2006, within which to file their notice of appeal to this Office. Unfortunately, they were able to do so only on April 27, 2006, or nine (9) days late[8] (Emphasis supplied.)
The "fresh period rule" in Neypes declares:To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.
Henceforth, this "fresh period rule" shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals; and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.x x x x x x x x x
As reflected in the above-quoted portion of the decision in Neypes, the "fresh period rule" shall apply to Rule 40_(appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts); Rule 41 (appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals); and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court). Obviously, these Rules cover judicial proceedings under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner's present case is administrative in nature involving an appeal from the decision or order of the DENR regional office to the DENR Secretary. Such appeal is indeed governed by Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990. As earlier quoted, Section 1 clearly provides that if the motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal "during the remainder of the period of appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial;" whereas if the decision is reversed, the adverse party has a fresh 15-day period to perfect his appeal. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 2, Rule XXI of the HLURB Resolution No. 765, series of 2004, prescribing the rules and regulations governing appeals from decisions of the Board of Commissioners to the Office of the President, pertinently reads:Section 2. Appeal. - Any party may, upon notice to the Board and the other party, appeal a decision rendered by the Board of Commissioners to the Office of the President within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, in accordance with P.D. No. 1344 and A.O. No. 18 Series of 1987.Corollary thereto, paragraph 2, Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987, provides that in case the aggrieved party files a motion for reconsideration from an adverse decision of any agency/office, the said party has the only remaining balance of the prescriptive period within which to appeal, reckoned from receipt of notice of the decision denying his/her motion for reconsideration.[12] (Emphasis supplied.)
The pendency of the motion for reconsideration shall suspend the running of the period of appeal to the Office of the President.