DOMINGO NEYPES, ET AL - vs.COURTOF APPEALS, ET AL
DOMINGO NEYPES, ET AL - vs.COURTOF APPEALS, ET AL
FACTS:
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not receipt of a final order triggers the
start of the 15-day reglementary period to appeal, the
February 12, 1998 order dismissing the complaint or the
July 1, 1998 order dismissing the Motion for
Reconsideration.
HELD:
(1) The July 1, 1998 order dismissing the motion for
reconsideration should be deemed as the final order. In the
case of Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc., the trial court
declared petitioner non-suited and accordingly dismissed his
complaint. Upon receipt of the order of dismissal, he filed an
omnibus motion to set it aside. When the omnibus motion
was filed, 12 days of the 15-day period to appeal the order
had lapsed. He later on received another order, this time
dismissing his omnibus motion. He then filed his notice of
appeal. But this was likewise dismissed ― for having been
filed out of time. The court a quo ruled that petitioner should
have appealed within 15 days after the dismissal of his
complaint since this was the final order that was appealable
under the Rules. The SC reversed the trial court and
declared that it was the denial of the motion for
reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint which
constituted the final order as it was what ended the issues
raised there. This pronouncement was reiterated in the more
recent case of Apuyan v. Haldeman et al. where the SC
again considered the order denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration as the final order which finally disposed of
the issues involved in the case. Based on the
aforementioned cases, the SC sustained petitioners’ view
that the order dated July 1, 1998 denying their motion for
reconsideration was the final order contemplated in the
Rules.