Decision 7 G.R. No. 212607 for reconsideration are now allowed to file an appeal within fifteen days from the denial of that motion. 30 The Court is not unaware that jurisprudence has held that the Neypes Rule strictly applies only with respect to judicial decisions and that the said rule does not firmly apply to administrative decisions. However, in the cases wherein the Court did not apply the Neypes Rule to administrative decisions, the specific administrative rules of procedure applicable in such cases explicitly precluded the application of the Fresh Period Rule. For instance, in Panolino v. Tajala, 31 which involved an appeal of a decision of a Regional Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) before the DENR Secretary, the Court held that "Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, as clarified in Neypes, being inconsistent with Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990, it may not apply to the case of petitioner whose motion for reconsideration was denied." 32 The Court did not apply the Fresh Period Rule because, according to Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990, which was the applicable rule of procedure in that case, "if a motion for reconsideration of the decision/order of the Regional Office is filed and such motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall have the right to perfect his appeal during the re·mainder of the period for appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial." 33 As another example, in San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. v. Bayang, 34 the Court did not apply the Fresh Period Rule in an appeal of a decision of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) before the Office of the President (OP) because according to the applicable rule therein, i.e., Section 2, Rule XXI of HLURB Resolution No. 765, Series of 2004, in relation to Paragraph 2, Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987, "in case the aggrieved party files a motion for reconsideration from an adverse decision of any agency/office, the said party has the only remaining balance of the prescriptive period within which to appeal, reckoned from receipt of notice of the decision denying his/her motion for reconsideration." 35 Similarly, in Jocson v. San Miguel, 36 the Fresh Period Rule was also not applied in an appeal from a decision of the Provincial Adjudicator to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) because, 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Active Realty and Development Corp. v. Fernandez, 562 Phil. 707, 721 (2007). 636Phil.313(2010). Id. at 319-320. Administrative Order No. 87, Sec. I (b) ( 1990). 758 Phil. 368 (2015). Id. at 374. 783 Phil. 176 (2016).