Short answer. Not necessarily. Rule 122, Section 5 lets the appellee waive the right to notice that an appeal has been taken, and even without a waiver, the appellate court may still entertain the appeal despite the missing notice, in its discretion, if the interests of justice so require.
What the law says
The appellee may waive his right to a notice that an appeal has been taken.
Rule 122, Section 5 — Waiver of notice. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain an appeal notwithstanding failure to give such notice if the interests of justice so require.
Rule 122, Section 5 — Waiver of notice. Read the full provision →
Notice of appeal exists for the appellee's benefit
The requirement to notify the appellee that an appeal has been taken protects the appellee's interest in knowing the case is proceeding to a higher court, so the appellee can prepare to defend the judgment on review. Because the notice exists for the appellee's own benefit, Section 5 lets the appellee simply waive that right — the requirement is not so rigid that it cannot be given up. An appellee who learns of the appeal through other means, or who simply does not care to insist on formal notice, is free to proceed as if it had been properly given.
A missing notice is not automatically fatal
Even where the appellee has not waived notice and it was never given, the appeal is not necessarily lost. Section 5 authorizes the appellate court, in its discretion, to entertain the appeal despite that failure, provided the interests of justice call for it. An appellee who wants to challenge a defective notice should raise the issue promptly, since the appellate court's discretion to overlook it works against a late objection. This reflects a broader preference in Philippine procedure for deciding appeals on their merits rather than dismissing them over a procedural lapse that caused no real prejudice to the appellee's ability to participate in the appeal.
Discretion, not entitlement
This is a discretionary safety valve, not a rule that failure to notify never matters. The appellate court weighs whether justice requires overlooking the defect in a given case; an appellant should not assume a missed notice will always be forgiven, but Section 5 means it is not an automatic ground to dismiss the appeal either. In practice, an appellee who wants a missing notice to actually matter should raise the objection promptly and explain the resulting prejudice, rather than waiting until late in the proceedings and hoping the appellate court treats silence itself as a bar to the appeal. This provision binds only the appellee's right to notice of the appeal itself; it does not excuse the appellant from separately complying with the deadlines and service requirements that govern perfecting the appeal in the first place.