Alano v. Paglinawan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs initiated Civil Case No. 5245 in the Quezon court of first instance in August 1951, seeking recovery of a parcel of land and damages. The following month, they petitioned for the appointment of a receiver. To prevent this, defendant Daniel Paglinawan posted a surety bond of P2,000 from Rizal Surety & Insurance Co., conditioned upon payment of damages adjudged by the Court. Procedural History: The Quezon court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to vacate the land and pay P1,064.00 annually until vacation. The court deferred action on the plaintiffs' request to have the surety satisfy the judgment until after the appellate court decided the defendant's appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the defendant's appeal on November 3, 1955. The Petition: Upon reiteration of the plaintiffs' request, the Quezon court, by order dated January 11, 1956, directed Rizal Surety & Insurance Company to deposit the P2,000 bond amount. The surety received notice on January 20, 1956, and filed a motion for reconsideration on February 20, 1956, asserting the order's illegality for lacking a finding of facts. This motion was denied on March 14, 1956, and the surety was notified on April 24, 1956. On May 24, 1956, the surety registered its intention to appeal the March 14, 1956 order.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from the order dated March 14, 1956, denying the motion for reconsideration, is valid when the original order dated January 11, 1956, had already become final. Whether the appellant may circumvent the finality of the order of January 11, 1956, by appealing only the denial of its motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. Costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the validity of the appeal from the order dated March 14, 1956, when the original order dated January 11, 1956, had already become final: The Court found that the appeal was tardy and useless. The order of January 11, 1956, required the surety company to deposit the bond amount. The surety received notice of this order on January 20, 1956. The surety then filed a motion for reconsideration on February 20, 1956, which was 31 days after receiving notice of the January 11 order. This motion was denied on March 14, 1956, and the surety received notice of the denial on April 24, 1956. The surety then filed its notice of appeal on May 24, 1956, which was 30 days after receiving notice of the denial. The total elapsed time from notice of the January 11 order to the notice of appeal from the March 14 order was 61 days. This period clearly exceeded the reglementary periods for appeal. On the issue of whether the appellant may circumvent the finality of the order of January 11, 1956, by appealing only the denial of its motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the appellant could not circumvent the finality of the questioned order of January 11, 1956, by the subterfuge of merely appealing from the denial of its motion to reconsider. The appellant's brief explicitly questioned the order of January 11, 1956, and even assigned as error the issuance of both the January 11 and March 14, 1956 orders. The Court emphasized that the appeal was perfected on May 24, 1956, long after the order of January 11, 1956, had become final. The appeal was therefore dismissed because it was perfected out of time and sought to assail an order that had already attained finality.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration is considered an appeal from the original order, and if the original order has already become final, the appeal from the denial of the motion for reconsideration must also be dismissed.