Ferrer v. Tabora
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Juanito Ferrer was the Assistant Civil Engineer of Baguio City, in charge of the Waterworks system, with an annual compensation of P3,720.00. He was also authorized to act as representative of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) under Executive Order No. 127. While Ferrer was on an observation tour in the United States, the City Council of Baguio City, by Resolution No. 186, s. 1956, abolished his position, believing it would be absorbed by NAWASA. Subsequently, Resolution No. 188, s. 1956, excluded the position from the city's annual budget. Procedural History: On October 1, 1956, Ferrer filed a petition for Mandamus with Damages with the Court of First Instance of Baguio, seeking restoration to his position. After trial, the court rendered judgment on August 26, 1957, declaring Resolution No. 188 illegal, ordering the respondents to restore Ferrer to his position, and awarding him P600.00 for attorney's fees and costs. The Petition: Respondents appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration, which lacked specific references to evidence or law, suspended the running of the 15-day period for appeal in a Mandamus proceeding. Whether the Supreme Court acquired jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of First Instance despite the late filing of the notice of appeal.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was perfected beyond the fifteen-day period fixed for mandamus proceedings, as the motion for reconsideration filed by the appellants was pro-forma and did not suspend the running of the period of appeal. Consequently, the trial court's decision had become final and unappealable.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the Respondents' motion for reconsideration was pro-forma and, therefore, failed to suspend the fifteen-day period for appeal under Section 17 of Rule 41. Applying Rule 37, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court found that the motion was deficient because it did not specifically point out the findings or conclusions of the judgment not supported by evidence or contrary to law. The motion contained only general statements that the decision was 'not in accordance with the evidence' and 'contrary to law' without express references to testimonial or documentary evidence. The Court emphasized that even if the case involved a primary legal question, other factual issues like the alleged abandonment of office were also raised, requiring a detailed motion. Consequently, because the motion did not meet the legal requirements for specificity, it did not toll the appeal clock. The fact that the motion was set for hearing was irrelevant, as the pro-forma nature is determined by the content of the motion itself. On Issue 2: The Court held that it acquired no jurisdiction to review the decision because the notice of appeal was filed twenty-seven days after the notice of judgment. Since the motion for reconsideration did not toll the period, the fifteen-day reglementary period for Mandamus cases expired on September 11, 1957. The notice of appeal, filed only on September 23, 1957, was twelve days overdue. The Court reiterated that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Without a timely appeal, the trial court's decision attained finality and could no longer be modified or reviewed. The Court noted that the legality of the ouster was not the only issue, but the procedural failure rendered all substantive arguments moot. Therefore, the appeal had to be dismissed with costs against the appellants.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that fails to specifically point out the findings or conclusions of the judgment which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, with express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or the provision of law, is considered pro-forma and does not suspend the running of the period of appeal. Consequently, an appeal filed beyond the reglementary period after the denial of such a pro-forma motion will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.