Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
AUGUSTUS GONZALES and
SPOUSES NESTOR VICTOR
and
MA.
LOURDES
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners,

G.R. No. 167398

-versus-

PERALTA, and
SERENO,*** JJ.

Present:
CARPIO,* J.,
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
BRION,**

Promulgated:
QUIRICO PE,
August 9, 2011
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside
[1]
[2]
the Decision dated June 23, 2004 and Resolution dated February 23, 2005
of the Court of Appeals (CA), Twentieth Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 73171,
entitled Quirico Pe v. Honorable Judge Rene Hortillo, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 31,
Augustus Gonzales and Spouses Engr. Nestor Victor and Dr. Ma. Lourdes
Rodriguez, which granted the petition of respondent Quirico Pe.
Decision reversed and set aside the Order

[3]

The CA

dated September 23, 2002 of the

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 31, which dismissed

respondent's appeal for non-payment of docket and other lawful fees, and
directing the issuance of the writ of execution for the implementation of its
[4]

Decision

dated June 28, 2002 in favor of the petitioners and against the

respondent. The CA Decision also directed the RTC to assess the appellate
docket fees to be paid by the respondent, if it has not done so, and allow him to
pay such fees and give due course to his appeal.
The antecedents are as follows:
Respondent Quirico Pe was engaged in the business of construction
materials, and had been transacting business with petitioner Spouses Nestor
Victor Rodriguez and Ma. Lourdes Rodriguez. The Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH) awarded two contracts in favor of petitioner Nestor
Rodriguez for the following projects, namely, construction of Lanot-Banga Road
(Kalibo Highway) km. 39 + 200 to km. 40 + 275 Section IV (Aklan side) and
concreting of Laua-an Pandan Road (Tibial-Culasi Section), Province of
Antique. In 1998, respondent agreed to supply cement for the construction
projects of petitioner Spouses Rodriguez. Petitioner Nestor Rodriguez availed of
the DPWHs pre-payment program for cement requirement regarding the LanotBanga Road, Kalibo Highway project (Kalibo project), wherein the DPWH would
give an advance payment even before project completion upon his presentment,
among others, of an official receipt for the amount advanced. Petitioner Nestor
Rodriguez gave Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) Check No. 6563066 to
respondent, which was signed by co-petitioners (his wife Ma. Lourdes Rodriguez
and his business partner Augustus Gonzales), but leaving the amount and date in
blank. The blank LBP check was delivered to respondent to guarantee the
payment of 15,698 bags of Portland cement valued at P1,507,008.00, covered by
Official Receipt No. 1175,

[5]

issued by respondent (as owner of Antique

Commercial), in favor of petitioner Nestor Rodriguez (as owner of Greenland

Builders). However, a year later, respondent filled up blank LBP Check No.
6563066, by placing P2,062,000.00 and June 30, 1999, corresponding to the

amount and date.

On December 9, 1999, petitioners filed an Amended Complaint

[6]

for

Declaration of Payment, Cancellation of Documents and Damages against

respondent with the RTC, Branch 31, Iloilo City, docketed as Civil Case No.
25945. The amended complaint alleged that they entrusted blank LBP Check No.
6563066 to respondent so as to facilitate the approval of the pre-payment
application of petitioner Nestor Rodriguez with the DPWH. They stated that the
blank LBP check would serve as collateral to guarantee the payment for 15,698
bags to be used for the Kalibo project, amounting to P1,507,008.00, and that after
payment of the said amount, respondent would return the LBP check. According
to them, after having paid respondent the amount of P2,306,500.00, which is
P139,160.00 more than the amount of P2,167,340.00 (representing the value for
23,360 bags of cement taken for the Kalibo project), they were cleared of any
liability.
On January 6, 2000, respondent filed an Answer to Amended Complaint,
[7]

averring that he had so far delivered 40,360 bags of cement to petitioners who

remitted

P2,306,500.00,

thereby

leaving

an

outstanding

amount

of

P2,062,000.00. He countered that when petitioners stopped the bank-to-bank

online payments to him, he filled up the amount of P2,062,000.00 and made the
LBP check payable on June 30, 1999. The LBP check was dishonored for being
drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF). By way of compulsory counterclaim,
he sought recovery of the balance of P2,062,000.00, with interest at 24% from
January 29, 1999 until fully paid as actual damages.
[8]
In the Pre-trial Order dated January 28, 2000, the trial court determined
the following to be the delimited issues, to wit:
(1) whether plaintiffs [herein petitioners] liability to defendant [herein
respondent] for 15,698 bags priced at P1,507,008.00 subject of the earliermentioned pre-payment program and covered by the blank LBP Check No.

6563066 has already been paid, hence, plaintiffs are no longer liable to the
defendant for this amount;
(2) whether this LBP Check No. 6563066 should not be returned by
defendant to plaintiffs, or failing in which, should now be declared as cancelled,
null and void;
(3) whether plaintiffs have completely paid to the defendant the price of
the cement used for the Kalibo project which specifically is the amount of
23,360 bags of cement valued in the total amount of P2,167,340.00;
(4) whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages and attorneys fees; and
(5)

whether this case be dismissed and with the dismissal of the

[9]
complaint to proceed with the counterclaim.

In a Decision dated June 28, 2002, the trial court, applying Section 14

[10]

of the Negotiable Instruments Law, found that respondents subsequent filling up

of LBP Check No. 6563066 in the amount of P2,062,000.00 was not made strictly
in accordance with the authority given to him by petitioner Nestor Rodriguez, and
that since one year had already lapsed, the same was not done within a reasonable
time. As to the 23,360 bags of cement for the Kalibo project, valued at
P2,167,340.00 which was subject of previous transactions, the trial court ruled
that the same had been fully paid and considered a settled issue. Consequently,
the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners and against the respondent,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
plaintiffs and against the defendant, as follows:
1. Declaring plaintiffs' obligation to the defendant for the
cement supplied for the Kalibo (Lanot-Banga) Road Construction Project in the
amount of P2,167,340.00 as already and fully paid, hence, plaintiffs are no
longer liable to the defendant;
2. Declaring Land Bank Check No. 6563066 dated June 30,
1999 for P2,062,000.00 as null and void and without any legal effect;
3. Ordering defendant to pay each plaintiff the sums of
P100,000.00 as actual damages; P500,000.00 as moral damages; P200,000.00
as attorney's fees and P2,000.00 per hearing as appearance fee; P50,000.00 as

miscellaneous actual and necessary litigation expenses; and

4. To pay the costs.
Defendant's counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED.
[11]

SO ORDERED.

After receipt of a copy of the said RTC Decision on July 26, 2002,
respondent filed a Notice of Appeal on July 30, 2002.
[12]
In an Order
dated August 5, 2002, the trial court gave due course to
respondent's appeal, and directed the Branch Clerk of Court to transmit the entire
records of the case to the CA.

On August 26, 2002, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, to

Dismiss Appeal, and for Issuance of Writ of Execution,

[13]

stating that

respondents appeal should be dismissed as the same was not perfected due to
non-payment of docket and other lawful fees as required under Section 4, Rule 41
of the Rules of Court. Claiming that since the respondents appeal was not
perfected and, as a consequence, the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002 became
final and executory, petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of execution for the
implementation of the said RTC Decision. To buttress their motion, petitioners
[14]

also appended a Certification

dated August 19, 2002, issued by the Clerk of

Court of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the RTC, Iloilo City,
certifying that no appeal fees in the case had been paid and received by the OCC.
In the Order dated September 23, 2002, the trial court dismissed
respondent's appeal and directed the issuance of a writ of execution to implement
the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002.

On October 2, 2002, the Clerk of Court and Ex-officio Provincial Sheriff of

[15]
Iloilo issued the Writ of Execution
directing the execution of the RTC
Decision dated June 28, 2002.
On October 7, 2002, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order,

[16]

seeking to set aside the RTC Order dated

September 23, 2002 (which dismissed his appeal and directed the issuance of a
writ of execution to implement the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002), and to
enjoin the implementation of the Writ of Execution dated October 2, 2002.
[17]
In a Resolution
dated October 9, 2002, the CA granted the respondents
[18]

prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and, in the Resolution

dated August

20, 2003, approved the respondents injunction bond and directed the Division
Clerk of Court to issue the writ of preliminary injunction.
On August 20, 2003, the Division Clerk of Court issued the Writ of
[19]

Preliminary Injunction,

thereby enjoining the implementation of the Writ of

Execution dated October 2, 2002.

On June 23, 2004, the CA rendered a Decision in favor of the respondent,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The assailed order and writ of
execution of the Regional Trial Court must be, as it is hereby, SET ASIDE. The
trial court is hereby ordered to assess the appellate docket fees, if it has not done
so, and allow the petitioner to pay such fees and give due course to the
petitioner's appeal. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

[20]

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration

[21]

on August

24, 2004, which, however, was denied by the CA in a Resolution

[22]

dated

February 23, 2005.

Hence, petitioner filed this present petition raising the sole issue that:
THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN REVERSING
THE
DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT AND ALLOWING
RESPONDENT TO BELATEDLY PAY THE REQUIRED APPELLATE
DOCKET AND OTHER LEGAL FEES.

Petitioners allege that since respondent failed to pay the docket and other
legal fees at the time he filed the Notice of Appeal, his appeal was deemed not
perfected in contemplation of the law.

Thus, petitioners pray that the CA

decision be set aside and a new one be rendered dismissing the respondents
appeal and ordering the execution of the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002.
On the other hand, respondent, citing Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court, maintains that his appeal has been perfected by the mere filing of the
notice of appeal. Respondent theorizes that with the perfection of his appeal, the
trial court is now divested of jurisdiction to dismiss his appeal and, therefore,
only the CA has jurisdiction to determine and rule on the propriety of his appeal.
He raises the defense that his failure to pay the required docket and other legal
fees was because the RTC Branch Clerk of Court did not make an assessment of
the appeal fees to be paid when he filed the notice of appeal.
The petition is meritorious.
In cases of ordinary appeal, Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court
provides that the appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of
its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC
(the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from) and serving
a copy thereof upon the adverse party. Section 3 thereof states that the appeal
shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order

appealed from. Concomitant with the filing of a notice of appeal is the payment
of the required appeal fees within the 15-day reglementary period set forth in
Section 4 of the said Rule. Thus,
SEC. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Within the period
for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which
rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the
appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall
be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the
record on appeal.

In reversing the ruling of the trial court, the CA cited Yambao v. Court of
[23]
Appeals
as justification for giving due course to respondents petition and
ordering the belated payment of docket and other legal fees. In Yambao, the CA
dismissed therein petitioners appeal from the RTC decision for failure to pay the
full amount of the required docket fee. Upon elevation of the case, the Court,
however, ordered the CA to give due course to their appeal, and ruled that their
subsequent payment of the P20.00 deficiency, even before the CA had passed
upon their motion for reconsideration, was indicative of their good faith and
willingness to comply with the Rules.
The ruling in Yambao is not applicable to the present case as herein
respondent never made any payment of the docket and other lawful fees, not even
an attempt to do so, simultaneous with his filing of the Notice of Appeal.
Although respondent was able to file a timely Notice of Appeal, however, he
failed to pay the docket and other legal fees, claiming that the Branch Clerk of
Court did not issue any assessment. This procedural lapse on the part of the
respondent rendered his appeal with the CA to be dismissible and, therefore, the
RTC Decision, dated June 28, 2002, to be final and executory.

In Far Corporation v. Magdaluyo,

[24]

[25]
as with other subsequent cases

of the same ruling, the Court explained that the procedural requirement under
Section 4 of Rule 41 is not merely directory, as the payment of the docket and

other legal fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional.
It bears stressing that an appeal is not a right, but a mere statutory privilege. An
ordinary appeal from a decision or final order of the RTC to the CA must be
made within 15 days from notice. And within this period, the full amount of the
appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid to the clerk of the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from. The requirement of
paying the full amount of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is
not a mere technicality of law or procedure. The payment of docket fees within
the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such
payment, the appeal is not perfected. The appellate court does not acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the Decision sought to be
appealed from becomes final and executory. Further, under Section 1 (c), Rule
50, an appeal may be dismissed by the CA, on its own motion or on that of the
appellee, on the ground of the non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees
within the reglementary period as provided under Section 4 of Rule 41. The
payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the
perfection of an appeal. In both original and appellate cases, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.
Respondents claim that his non-payment of docket and other lawful fees
should be treated as mistake and excusable negligence, attributable to the RTC
Branch Clerk of Court, is too superficial to warrant consideration. This is clearly
negligence of respondent's counsel, which is not excusable. Negligence to be
excusable must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence
[26]

guarded against.

could not have

Respondent's counsel filed a notice of appeal within the

reglementary period for filing the same without, however, paying the appellate
docket fees. He simply ignored the basic procedure of taking an appeal by filing
a notice of appeal, coupled with the payment of the full amount of docket and
other lawful fees. Respondents counsel should keep abreast of procedural laws
and his ignorance of the procedural requirements shall bind the respondent. In
National Power Corporation v. Laohoo,

[27]

we ruled that therein counsels

failure to file the appeal in due time does not amount to excusable negligence.
The non-perfection of the appeal on time is not a mere technicality. Besides, to
grant therein petitioners plea for the relaxation of the rules on technicality would
disturb a well-entrenched ruling that could make uncertain when a judgment
attains finality, leaving the same to depend upon the resourcefulness of a party in
concocting implausible excuses to justify an unwarranted departure from the
time-honored policy of the law that the period for the perfection of an appeal is
mandatory and jurisdictional.
The CA took cognizance over the case, based on the wrong premise that
when the RTC issued the Order dated August 5, 2002 giving due course to
respondents Notice of Appeal and directing the Branch Clerk of Court to
transmit the entire records of the case to the CA, it ipso facto lost jurisdiction
[28]

over the case. Section 9,

Rule 41 of the Rules explains that the court of

origin loses jurisdiction over the case only upon the perfection of the appeal filed
in due time by the appellant and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other
parties. Withal, prior to the transmittal of the original records of the case to the
CA, the RTC may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of
the prevailing party, as in this case, the issuance of the writ of execution because
the respondents appeal was not perfected.
Moreover, Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules states that the CA may dismiss
an appeal taken from the RTC on the ground of non-payment of the docket and
other lawful fees within the 15-day reglementary period:
SEC 13. Dismissal of appeal. Prior to the transmittal of the original
record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may motu
proprio or on motion dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of time, or for
non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary
period. (As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, May 1, 2000.)

Since respondents appeal was not perfected within the 15-day

reglementary period, it was as if no appeal was actually taken. Therefore, the

RTC retains jurisdiction to rule on pending incidents lodged before it, such as the
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, to Dismiss Appeal, and for Issuance of
Writ of Execution, filed on August 26, 2002, which sought to set aside its Order
dated August 5, 2002 that gave due course to respondents Notice of Appeal, and
directed the issuance of a writ of execution. Having no jurisdiction over the case,
the prudent thing that the CA should have done was to dismiss the respondents
appeal for failure to pay the appeal fees, and declare that the RTC Decision dated
June 28, 2002 has now become final and executory.
As an incidental matter on the propriety of petitioners petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules, respondent raises the argument that
since the subject of the present petition is the writ of preliminary injunction
granted by the CA (in favor of the respondent enjoining the execution of the RTC
Decision dated June 28, 2002), in CA-G.R. SP No. 73171, which is interlocutory
in nature, petitioners petition should be denied for being the wrong remedy. In
other words, respondent advances the theory that since the assailed CA Decision
dated June 23, 2004 partakes of an interlocutory order, i.e., enjoining the finality
of the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002, petitioners should have availed of the
remedy of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45.
Respondents argument is unfounded.

The proper remedy of a party

aggrieved by a decision of the CA is a petition for review on certiorari under

Rule 45, which is not identical to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Rule 45
provides that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e.,
regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to
Us by filing a petition for review on certiorari, which would be but a
continuation of the appellate process over the original case.

[29]

Therefore,

petitioners filing of the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is
the proper and adequate remedy to challenge the Decision dated June 24, 2004
and Resolution dated February 23, 2005 of the CA.

To recapitulate, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly
comply with the requirements of the rules, and failure to do so leads to the loss of
the right to appeal.

[30]

The rules require that from the date of receipt of the

assailed RTC order denying ones motion for reconsideration, an appellant may
take an appeal to the CA by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC and paying the
required docket and other lawful fees with the RTC Branch Clerk of Court,
within the 15-day reglementary period for the perfection of an appeal.
Otherwise, the appellant's appeal is not perfected, and the CA may dismiss the
appeal on the ground of non-payment of docket and other lawful fees. As a
consequence, the assailed RTC decision shall become final and executory and,
therefore, the prevailing parties can move for the issuance of a writ of execution.
Since the CA erroneously took cognizance over the case, its Decision dated
June 23, 2004 and Resolution dated February 23, 2005 should be overturned, and
the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued on August 20, 2003 should likewise be
lifted. Thus, the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002 is reinstated and, as the said
decision having become final and executory, the case is remanded for its prompt
execution.
While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper
and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, the
failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere
technicality. It raises jurisdictional problem, as it deprives the appellate court of
its jurisdiction over the appeal. After a decision is declared final and executory,
vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the
right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative
right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case.

[31]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 23,

2004 and Resolution dated February 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals, in CAG.R. SP No. 73171, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, issued by the Court of Appeals on August 20, 2003, is LIFTED.
The Decision dated June 28, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31,
Iloilo City is REINSTATED and, in view of its finality, the case is
REMANDED for its prompt execution.
SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Third Division, Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

MORE FROM THE WEB

Diet Pill Burns Too Ladies Its Time

Much Fat...
To Take off That
Arrow
Bra. It Makes
Breasts Saggier,
French...
Buzzwok

12 Best Cities For

LGBT Members,
Excluding New
York And San
Francisco |...

Would You Apply

For The Toughest
Job In The World?
As Terrifying As
It...

Buzzwok

Buzzwok

Artist Creates The

Most Amazing
Drawings Without
Using Any Kind Of
Paint...

Girls Picking Up
Girls, Boys
Picking Up Boys
Awkward But Very
Interesting!...

Buzzwok

Buzzwok

The Falling
King! This Is Not
A Name Of A
Movie, But A
Spectacular
Scene...

Look What
Happened To
These 10 U.S.
Presidents Before
And After Their
Terms...

Buzzwok

Buzzwok

Stunning Nude
Photos Reveal
What Women
REALLY Look Like
After Giving
Birth....

Self Portraits By
Finnish
Photographer That
Will Make You
Cringe!

Buzzwok

Buzzwok

Shocking
Photographs Of
Injured Soldiers
Made By An Artist
In Such An
Extraordinary...

A Girl Posts A
Heart Breaking
Message On
Facebook Leads
Her Mom To Do
An...

Buzzwok

Buzzwok

Bed Surfing!
Chinese
Backpacker
Offering Sex As A
Trade For A Place
To...

Its A Miracle! A
Blind Man Sees
For The First Time
After 33 Years,
Watch...
Buzzwok

Buzzwok

A Social
Experiment
Domestic Abuse
Almost Went
Wrong! |
BuzzWok.com |
The...
Buzzwok

When Students
Get Nude To
Supporting A
Charity Cause,
Wonderful
Things...

Astonishing Act
By 25 Male Victims
Who Were
Sexually
Assaulted.
Shocking...

Ever Wondered
How Movie Sex
Scene Actually
Looks On The Set?
Feeling
Awkward?!...

Buzzwok

Buzzwok

Buzzwok

10 Places To Visit
Before You Die! Or
At Least Visit
While You Can.
MUST!...
Buzzwok

You should check

this out
Glispa
Ads By OffersWizard

Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, per Special Order No.
1059 dated August 1, 2011.
**
Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, per Special Order
No. 1056 dated July 27, 2011.
***
Designated as an additional member, per Special Order No. 1028 dated June 21, 2011.
[1]

Penned by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap, with Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Ramon
M. Bato, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 30-38.
[2]
Id. at 39-40.
[3]
Per Presiding Judge Rene S. Hortillo, records, vol. 1, p. 347.
[4]
Id. at 312-340.
[5]
Id. at 28.
[6]
Id. at 58-63.
[7]
Id. at 74-88.
[8]
Id. at 129-131.
[9]
Id. at 130-131.
[10]
Sec. 14. Blanks; when may be filled. Where the instrument is wanting in any material particular,
the person in possession thereof has a prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. And a
signature on a blank paper delivered by the person making the signature in order that the paper may be converted
into a negotiable instrument operates as a prima facie authority to fill it up as such for any amount. In order,
however, that any such instrument when completed may be enforced against any person who became a party
thereon prior to its completion, it must be filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and within a
reasonable time. But if any such instrument, after completion, is negotiated to a holder in due course, it is valid
and effectual for all purposes in his hands, and he may enforce it as if it had been filled up strictly in accordance

with the authority given and within a reasonable time.

[11]
Records, Vol. I, p. 340.
[12]
Id. at 342.
[13]
Id. at 343-345.
[14]
Id. at 346.
[15]
Rollo, pp. 67-68.
[16]
Id. at 41-65.
[17]
CA rollo, p. 95-97.
[18]
Id. at 256-257.
[19]
Id. at 258-259.
[20]
Rollo, pp. 30-38.
[21]
CA rollo, pp. 336-350.
[22]
Rollo, pp. 39-40.
[23]
G.R. No. 140894, November 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 141.
[24]
G.R. No. 148739, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 218, 226-227, 229. (Citations omitted.)
[25]
Rural Bank of the Seven Lakes (S.P.C.), Inc. v. Dan, G.R. No. 174109, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA
476, 488-489; KLT Fruits, Inc. v. WSR Fruits, Inc., G.R. No. 174219, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 713, 727728; Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia, G.R. No. 173942, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 252, 259260; Cu-Unjieng v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139596, January 24, 2006, 470 SCRA 594, 603-604; Bacarra v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 162445, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 581, 586.
[26]
Ruiz v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 166386, January 27, 2009, 577 SCRA 29, 44. (Citations omitted.)
[27]
G.R. No. 151973, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 564, 591.

[28]

SEC. 9. Perfection of appeal, effect thereof. A partys appeal by notice of appeal is deemed
perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.
xxxx
In 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.
xxxx
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue
orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by
the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in
accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.
[29]
Emcor Incorporated v. Sienes, G.R. No. 152101, September 8, 2009, 598 SCRA 617, 626-627, citing
Mercado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150241, November 4, 2004, 441 SCRA 463, 469; Hanjin Engineering
and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165910, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 78, 99.
[30]
M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 136477, November 10, 2004, 441 SCRA
525, 528.
[31]
National Power Corporation v. Laohoo, supra note 27.