Casolita vs. CA 1. ATROP, Inc.

filed for recovery of possession of parcel of land located in Intramuros Manila against the petitioners contending that it is the owner of the same in fee simple. . !asolita on the other hand, through his counsel Atty. Aguilar alleged that he was a designated careta"er of the real owners of the land. Other petitioners, represented #y Atty. $atpatan ac%uiesced with the allegation of !asolita asserting that they were not s%uatters in they have #een in O!&' possession for more than 1( yrs. ). The RT! rendered *udgment in favor of ATROP and ordered the petitioners to vacate the land. +. Atty. Aguilar received the copy of the decision #ut failed to file a notice of appeal. On the other hand, Atty. $atpatan filed a notice of appeal. ,. ATROP filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and for the issuance of a writ of e-ecution. It argued that as for !asolita, the decision has #ecome final and e-ecutor for his counsel received the copy of the decision without filing a notice of appeal. And as to the other petitioners, the appeal must #e dismissed for its counsel failed to serve the notice of appeal to the counsel of ATROP. .. The RT! granted the motion to dismiss and ordered the issuance of the writ of e-ecution. /. Atty. 0aylon filed a notice of appearance representing all the petitioners and moved for reconsideration of the said order for it is repugnant to the principle of due process. 1e contended that !asolita were not properly notified a#out the decision since Atty. Aguilar had withdrawn ascounsel 2due to poor health3. 4. 5till, the RT! denied the MR and the motion to admit appeal. 6. The case was elevated to the !A, #ut the same was denied. I557&8 9O' the !A committed grave a#use of discretion. 1&:;8 'O. 1. 7nder previous rule, an appeal may #e ta"en #y 2serving upon the adverse party and filing with the trial court within )( days from notice of order or *udgment, a notice of appeal, an appeal #ond or record on appeal. As amended #y 0P 1 6, 5ec )6 deleted the need to file an appeal #ond and record on appeal, e-cept in multiple appeals and in special proceedings, and #y fi-ing the period of appeal to 1, days. The entire original record of the case is then transmitted to the !A. . Appeals for final *udgments or orders of RT! are now ta"en to !A #y simply filing a notice of appeal. The simplification of the process underscored the importance of the notice of appeal. ). The adverse party may only #e apprised with such notice. It must #e complied with so that the adverse party #e afforded the opportunity to oppose the notice of appeal if he so desires. +. Atty. Aguilar<s failure to file a notice of appeal was fatal to their cause.