PONCIANO ESMERIS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH XXXI, QUEZON CITY, AND ROBERTO VISEY, RESPONDENTS.

Esmeris versus Ortiz

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus filed by Ponciano Esmeris against Judge Rodolfo Ortiz, the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal sitting in Quezon City, and against Roberto Visey, the private respondent. Esmeris asks the Supreme Court to compel the respondent judge to allow his appeal from a judgment that went against him in a complaint for specific performance and damages. The case matters because it fixes the rule on the retroactive application of procedural law: the abolition of the record on appeal as a general requirement does not revive an appeal that was never perfected, because by the time the new rule took effect the judgment had already become final and executory.

Procedural History

Roberto Visey sued Ponciano Esmeris for specific performance and damages. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment against Esmeris. Within the reglementary period, Esmeris filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a motion for extension of time to file his record on appeal, which the trial court granted. He then filed his record on appeal within the extended period. Visey opposed it, and the trial court ordered Esmeris to submit an amended record on appeal within twenty days from receipt of the order. Esmeris received that order through counsel, but filed the amended record on appeal more than four months later. The trial court disapproved the amended record on appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time, since as of its filing the judgment had already become final and executory. Visey moved for execution; Esmeris opposed and moved for reconsideration. The trial court granted execution and later denied both of Esmeris's motions for reconsideration. Esmeris then went directly to the Supreme Court on a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to allow his appeal.

Facts

Visey's complaint for specific performance and damages was decided against Esmeris by the trial court. Esmeris moved to appeal: he filed his notice of appeal and appeal bond on time, and his original record on appeal within the period the trial court allowed.

Because Visey opposed the record on appeal, the trial court ordered Esmeris to submit an amended record on appeal within twenty days from receipt of the order. Esmeris received that order through counsel on 16 April 1981. He filed the amended record on appeal only on 31 August 1981, more than four months after receipt of the order and more than three months after the twenty-day period had expired.

The trial court disapproved the amended record on appeal as filed out of time, declaring that the judgment had already become final and executory. On that basis Visey moved for execution, and the trial court granted it over Esmeris's opposition and denied his motions for reconsideration. Esmeris then filed this petition for mandamus.

Issues

• Whether or not the abolition of the record on appeal as a general requirement for taking an appeal, being procedural, may be applied retroactively so as to save an appeal that was never perfected.
• Whether or not Esmeris perfected his appeal, considering that his amended record on appeal was filed long after the period set by the trial court.
• Whether or not the trial court properly disapproved the amended record on appeal and granted the motion for execution.

Applicable Provisions

Section 39 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981 provides:

A record on appeal shall no longer be required, as a general rule, to take an appeal.

This is the new procedural rule whose retroactive application Esmeris invoked to save his appeal.

Section 18 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by the Court contains the same provision:

A record on appeal shall no longer be required, as a general rule, to take an appeal.

This confirms that the abolition of the record on appeal is the governing procedural rule, but its retroactive reach is what the Court had to define.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the abolition of the record on appeal is procedural in nature and may be given retroactive application, but this rule is not absolute. Procedural statutes apply to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage; they do not reach a judgment that has already become final and executory.

On the second issue, the Court held that Esmeris never perfected his appeal. Although he filed his notice of appeal and appeal bond on time, and his original record on appeal within the period granted, that record was not timely approved because it was ordered amended upon Visey's opposition, and the amended record was filed long after the period granted. The Court emphasized that when Esmeris filed the amended record on appeal, more than four months had passed since his receipt through counsel of the order requiring the amendment, and more than three months since the twenty-day period had expired.

On the third issue, the Court held that since the trial court's decision had long become final and executory, the orders disapproving the amended record on appeal and granting the motion for execution were proper. The retroactive application of the new rule could not breathe life into an appeal that was never perfected.

Doctrine

Procedural laws are retrospective: they apply to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. But this rule is not absolute. The abolition of the record on appeal as a general requirement for taking an appeal cannot be applied to revive an appeal that was never perfected, because by then the judgment had already become final and executory. An appellant who fails to file his amended record on appeal within the period fixed by the trial court does not perfect his appeal, and the judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law.

Disposition

The petition was denied, with costs against Esmeris; the trial court's disapproval of the amended record on appeal and its order of execution stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: procedural laws are retrospective, but they cannot revive an appeal that was never perfected after the judgment has become final and executory. Examiners use this case to test the retroactive application of the record on appeal rule and the meaning of perfection of an appeal.