Villarica v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves orders issued by the Court of First Instance of Davao in civil case 1160. The specifics of the original dispute are not detailed in this excerpt, but it led to orders from the trial court that the petitioners sought to appeal. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners, Nieves Palma Gil Villarica and Angel Villarica, appealed two orders from the Court of First Instance of Davao to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in resolutions dated July 31, 1967, and October 18, 1967, dismissed this appeal. The dismissal was based on the ground that the record on appeal failed to demonstrate on its face that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period, citing Section 1(a), Rule 50 in relation to Section 6, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review of the Court of Appeals' dismissal through a petition for certiorari. They argue that their record on appeal substantially complies with the rules, referencing the case of Design Masters, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. However, the core issue revolves around the timeliness of their appeal to the Court of Appeals. The petitioners received the trial court's order on February 18, 1964, and filed their motion for reconsideration on February 21, 1964. The motion for reconsideration was denied, and they received notice on March 3, 1964. They filed their notice of appeal on March 4, 1964, and their record on appeal was submitted on March 20, 1964. The Supreme Court examines whether the motion for reconsideration was pro forma and thus did not suspend the appeal period, concluding that the appeal was indeed time-barred.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to state the date of filing in the printed record on appeal is a fatal defect under Section 6, Rule 41. Whether the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration suspended the thirty-day period for appeal, rendering the filing of the record on appeal on March 20, 1964, timely.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the appeal. The Court found that the appeal was perfected out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the failure to state the filing date in the printed record on appeal is not a fatal defect if the date is stamped on the original record on appeal. Citing Design Masters, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the Court clarified that Section 6, Rule 41 refers to the record on appeal filed with the trial court rather than the printed version in the appellate court. Because the Court of Appeals can examine the original record forwarded to it to determine the filing date, the objectives of the rule are met through substantial compliance. Therefore, the petitioners' record on appeal was not defective on this specific ground. However, this procedural reprieve did not resolve the question of whether the filing itself was actually late. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the appeal was filed out of time because the Motion for Reconsideration was pro forma and did not toll the appeal period. The thirty-day period to appeal the order of February 17, 1964, began on February 18 and ended on March 19, 1964. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners failed to specify the particular findings or conclusions that were erroneous, merely offering generic allegations. Applying Rule 37 and Rule 41, Section 3, a pro forma motion does not suspend the reglementary period; thus, the petitioners were required to perfect their appeal by March 19. Since the record on appeal was filed only on March 20, 1964, the appeal was time-barred and the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed it.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that merely alleges that the order is contrary to law and facts, without specifying wherein the order is not supported by evidence or is contrary to law, is a pro forma motion and does not suspend the running of the period for appeal.