Contractual Obligations and Appeal Timeliness: Salendab v. Dela Peña

The Supreme Court's Resolution in Salendab v. Dela Peña (G.R. No. 217569, May 5, 2021) provides a clear reminder of two fundamental principles in Philippine law: contracts, once freely entered into, are the law between the parties; and procedural rules on appeal periods, while strict, are applied with fairness when a party acts in good faith. The case weaves together substantive contract law with the procedural intricacies of motions for reconsideration, notices of appeal, and petitions for certiorari.

The Facts: A Broken Agreement to Sell Land

The case began when spouses Datu Camaro and Bai Jolly Salendab filed a complaint for Specific Performance, Collection of Sum of Money, and Damages against Florence Case Dela Peña. The Salendabs claimed that Dela Peña engaged their services to help sell her two parcels of land to the Land Bank of the Philippines under the Department of Agrarian Reform's Voluntary Offer to Sell scheme.

Their agreement was embodied in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed on August 15, 2003. Under the MOA, Dela Peña agreed to pay the Salendabs 15% of the total proceeds of the sale, and to sell them all her LBP bonds that formed part of the proceeds. Crucially, the MOA explicitly stated that it "would not be subject to revocation/cancellation, amendments, or modification without the written consent of both parties."

After the VOS application was approved, Dela Peña allegedly refused to pay the P1,221,000.00 representing 15% of the proceeds. Worse, she executed an Affidavit on December 29, 2005, unilaterally revoking the MOA without any stated reason.

The RTC Decision: Contracts Are the Law Between Parties

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Salendabs. The RTC found that Dela Peña presented no evidence that her consent to the MOA was vitiated by coercion, intimidation, or fraud. She signed the contract voluntarily.

The RTC emphasized that the MOA's provisions constitute the law between the parties. Since Dela Peña failed to secure the written consent of the Salendabs before revoking the MOA, her Affidavit of Revocation was rendered without legal effect. The court ordered her to pay the agreed compensation, unrealized profits from the bonds, and various damages.

The Procedural Maze: Timeliness of Appeals

The case took a procedural turn when Dela Peña received the RTC Decision on April 14, 2009. She filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 29, 2009. The RTC denied it on June 4, 2009, declaring it pro forma for allegedly failing to state the grounds required under Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court. Because the motion was deemed pro forma, it did not toll the running of the appeal period.

When Dela Peña filed her Notice of Appeal on June 23, 2009, the RTC denied it as filed out of time. This prompted Dela Peña to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals.

The CA initially dismissed the petition but later granted it on reconsideration, finding that the Motion for Reconsideration was not pro forma and that the Notice of Appeal was timely filed. The CA directed the RTC to give due course to the appeal.

The Supreme Court Ruling: Upholding Fairness in Procedure

The Supreme Court denied the Salendabs' petition, affirming the CA's rulings on three key points.

First, the Court clarified that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution. Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, when a pleading is filed by registered mail, the date of mailing—as shown by the post office stamp or registry receipt—is considered the date of filing. Although the CA received the petition on October 20, 2009, it was actually mailed on October 9, 2009, the last day of the reglementary period. The petition was therefore timely filed.

Second, the Court agreed with the CA that Dela Peña's Motion for Reconsideration was not pro forma. Citing Marine Properties Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that where the circumstances do not show an intent to delay proceedings, and the motion reveals a bona fide effort to present additional matters or reiterate arguments in a different light, courts should be slow to declare it pro forma. Dela Peña's motion specifically pointed out the RTC's erroneous findings and challenged the amounts awarded as excessive and unconscionable.

Third, because the Motion for Reconsideration was valid, it tolled the running of the appeal period. Dela Peña had a fresh 15-day period from receipt of the denial of her motion to file her appeal. Her Notice of Appeal, filed on June 15, 2009, was therefore timely.

Practical Takeaways

• Contracts bind parties strictly. A contract freely entered into is the law between the parties. Unilateral revocation, without the consent required by the contract itself, has no legal effect.
• A motion for reconsideration must state specific grounds. To be valid, it must point out findings or conclusions that the movant believes are erroneous, and it must not appear to be a mere delaying tactic.
• A valid motion for reconsideration stops the clock. It tolls the running of the appeal period, giving the losing party a fresh 15 days to appeal from receipt of the denial.
• Filing by registered mail counts from the date of mailing. Under Rule 13, Section 3, the registry receipt date is the date of filing, not the date the court receives the pleading.
• Rule 45 petitions are limited to questions of law. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; findings of fact by lower courts are generally final and conclusive.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.