United Interior Manggahan Homeowners Association v.

De Luna
G. R. No. 216788
November 20, 2017

FACTS:
Petitioner, represented by its President, Calilung, filed before the RTC a Complaint for
Specific Performance with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction with Damages against respondents Spouses Villon, now
represented by their heirs Emee, Emmanuel, Elsie, Elma, and Ellen (herein
respondents). After petitioner rested its case, Sps. Villon filed a Manifestation and
Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence, which the RTC eventually granted in an
Order and thereby dismissing petitioner's complaint.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but was denied. Consequently, petitioner filed a
Notice of Appeal.
Sps. Villon filed an Omnibus Motion to Strike Out Notice of Appeal and Issue Certificate
of Finality claiming that petitioner failed to attach a board resolution authorizing Calilung
to file the Notice of Appeal on its behalf, pursuant to Section 12 of RA 9904.
Respondents also claimed that petitioner no longer exists and that it failed to comply
with the reportorial requirements mandated by Section 46, Rule 8 and Section 63, Rule
10 of Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Resolution No. 877, Series of 2011, and
furthermore, did not show proof of payment of the required appeal fees.
The RTC ordered petitioner's Notice of Appeal expunged from the records "for lack of
authority from [its] Board of Directors to initiate the appeal," pursuant to Section 2 of RA
9904. The Court also found that "[petitioner] has paid the appeal fee within the
reglementary period.
Petitioner sought reconsideration, attaching a copy of Board Resolution No. 01, Series
of 2013, confirming Calilung's authority to represent United Interior Manggahan
Homeowners Association in the case. Sps. Villon opposed the motion, reiterating that
Calilung did not attach a board resolution authorizing him to file the Notice of Appeal on
the association’s behalf and had failed to show proof of payment of the required appeal
fees. They also alleged that petitioner's motion for reconsideration failed to comply with
the three-day notice rule under Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC denied petitioner's motion on the same ground, adding that petitioner failed to
"present proof that the required docket and other court fees were paid" and to comply
with Section 4, Rule 15 of the same Rules that requires at least three (3) days prior
notice for the hearing of its motion for reconsideration. Moreover, the RTC declared its
previous Order final and executory.
Hence, petitioner filed the present certiorari petition.

ISSUES:
 1. Whether or not the trial court is divested of jurisdiction all over the judgment and
action once an appeal is perfected.
2. Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in expunging petitioner's
Notice of Appeal from the records of the case.
3. Whether or not the petitioner’s failure to present proof of payment of the appeal
fees is fatal to petitioner’s appeal.
4. Whether or not certiorari is the proper remedy.

RULING:
1. No. The trial court is not divested of jurisdiction all over the judgment and action
once an appeal is perfected. Under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, "[i]n
appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the
perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal
of the other parties." Under Section 13 of the same Rules, the mere filing of a
notice of appeal does not automatically divest the trial court of its jurisdiction,
since the appeal is deemed perfected as to the appellant only; it is not "deemed
perfected," for purposes of divesting the court of its jurisdiction, "before the
expiration of the period to appeal of the other parties." Thus, the RTC has yet to
lose its jurisdiction over the case when petitioner filed its Notice of Appeal as
respondents' period to appeal had not yet expired by then.
2. Yes. The RTC gravely abused its discretion in expunging petitioner's Notice of
Appeal from the records of the case for "lack of authority from its Board of
Directors to initiate the appeal." Under the Rules, an appeal from cases decided
by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be made to the Court of
Appeals by "filing a notice of appeal [(or record of appeal in cases required by
law)] with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from
and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party." The appeal shall be taken,
with the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees paid,
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.
Thus, a board resolution authorizing the representative to initiate the appeal is
not required for the purpose of filing a notice of appeal. A notice of appeal is not
a pleading, initiatory or otherwise, that, when required by the law or the rules,
must contain, among others, a verification and certification against forum
shopping to be signed by the party or his/her representative, and, in the case of a
representative, proof of his/her authority to file the action, i.e., power of attorney
or secretary's certificate with copy of the board resolution.
In the case at bar, Calilung's authority to represent petitioner in the case was
attached with its motion for reconsideration, i.e., Board Resolution No. 01, Series
of 2013. Thus, when the RTC in this case expunged petitioner's Notice of Appeal
for lack of authority from petitioner's Board of Directors to initiate the appeal, it
 not only effectively expanded the procedural requirements for initiating an
appeal, it also deprived petitioner of further recourse to the higher courts by
asking for the submission of documents which neither the law nor the Rules and
jurisprudence require.
3. No. Petitioner’s failure to present proof of payment of the appeal fees is not fatal
to petitioner’s appeal. Under the Rules, it is the non-payment of the docket and
other lawful fees within the reglementary period that would justify the court in
dismissing the appeal. The RTC ruling is correct especially considering its earlier
finding that petitioner "has paid the appeal fee within the reglementary period."
4. Yes. Certiorari is the proper remedy in the case at bar. Section 1, Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court provides that no appeal may be taken from, among others, an
order disallowing or dismissing an appeal.The aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. The assailed Order expunging
petitioner's Notice of Appeal from the records of the case is effectively an order
disallowing or dismissing an appeal that precludes resort to an appeal. Hence,
pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 41, its only recourse is via the present certiorari
action.