A lawyer consulted me regarding his case: An action for sum of money was filed against his defendant client in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The plaintiff won a judgment of ₱600,000. The defendant forthwith filed a notice of appeal, while the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the judgment award should be increased. The court granted the motion for reconsideration and rendered an amended decision awarding plaintiff an increased amount of ₱1 million. Should the defendant also file a notice of appeal from the amended decision?
I apprised the lawyer that under law and jurisprudence, there is no more need for him to file another notice of appeal from the amended decision. The Supreme Court has held that a party need not file a second notice of appeal from the amended decision after having perfected an appeal from the original decision and that to hold otherwise would be to give a premium to technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case. (PNB-Republic Bank v. Cordova, 548 SCRA 551 [2008]; Pacific Life Assurance Co. v. Sison, 299 SCRA 16 [1998]) The ratio decidendi for this ruling is that under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party’s notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him by the filing of the notice of appeal in due time. Having already perfected his appeal, the defendant does not need to do anything further in the trial court insofar as preserving his appeal is concerned.
Nonetheless, I advised the lawyer that if he still has the time, it would be best to file an ad cautelam notice of appeal. There is still the possibility that the trial judge or appellate court may think that the defendant should still appeal anew from the amended decision. The payment of the appeal fee would be of little convenience compared to the possibility of the trial judge or the appellate court dismissing the defendant’s appeal for having been filed out of time.
Interestingly, my suggestion to the lawyer to file an ad cautelam appeal arose from question number 12 of the 2008 Remedial Law Bar Examination and some suggested answers to it:
“Q After receiving the adverse decision rendered against his client, the defendant, Atty. Sikat duly filed a notice of appeal. For his part, the plaintiff timely filed a motion for partial new trial to seek an increase in the monetary damages awarded. The RTC instead rendered an amended decision further reducing the monetary awards. Is it necessary for Atty. Sikat to file a second notice of appeal after receiving the amended decision?”
One suggested answer is as follows:
“Yes, it is necessary for Atty. Sikat to file a second notice of appeal to the amended decision because a substantial change was made to the original decision when the monetary awards were reduced in the amended decision and in effect the amended decision superseded the original decision. A new notice of appeal is required to comply with the required contents thereof in respect of the amended decision. (Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. Sison, 299 SCRA 16 [1998]; Magdalena Estates, Inc. v. Caluag, 11 SCRA 333 [1964]).”
(Answers to 2008 Bar Examination Questions, UPLC, p. 139).
Another suggested answer reads thus:
“Yes, it is necessary for Atty. Sikat to file a second notice of appeal after receiving the amended decision. In Magdalena Estate v. Caluag (11 SCRA 333 [1964]), the Court ruled that a party must re-take an appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the amended ruling or decision, which stands in place of the old decision. It is in effect, a new decision.”
(Suggested Answers to the 2008 Bar Examination Questions, PALS, p. 113).
One who reads these suggested answers may think that an aggrieved party needs to appeal anew from an amended or modified decision. However a closer analysis reveals that the suggested answers are not in accord with jurisprudence.
Pacific Life Assurance Corporation cited in the first suggested answer actually holds that an appeal is not required to be taken from an amended decision. It did contain an obiter that a notice of appeal would be necessary if the amended decision decreased the appellant’s liability. This obiter however is clearly at war with the ratio of the holdings in PNB-Republic Bank and in Pacific Life Assurance Corporation itself, that is, that a party who files a notice of appeal in due time has already perfected such appeal and need not do anything further.
Magdalena Estate cited in both suggested answers is also not in point. In Magdalena Estate, the question addressed was from which date to reckon the period to appeal in case the original decision was amended. Magdalena did not at all implicate the issue regarding a second notice of appeal since there was only one notice of appeal filed by the defendant in that case. (Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. Sison, supra).
I told the lawyer that the obiter in Pacific Life Assurance Corporation actually reinforced the conclusion that a second notice of appeal was no longer necessary since the judgment increased his client’s liability. At any rate, we have seen that the nature of the amendment, whether it increases or decreases the appellant’s liability, or whether the amendment is substantial or not, is immaterial. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no need to appeal anew from an amended or modified judgment.