Provincial Board of Agusan v. Ago
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the award of a lot formerly used as the Provincial Governor's residence in Agusan. Pastor D. Ago claimed a vested right to the lot after his bid was approved and accepted by the Provincial Board of Agusan on July 28, 1958. He filed a petition for injunction to prevent the Board from conducting another public sale. 2. Procedural History: Ago filed his petition for injunction with the Court of First Instance of Agusan on September 29, 1958. After a stipulation of facts and a decision rendered on November 6, 1967, the Provincial Fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration on November 18, 1967, which was denied on December 12, 1967. The Provincial Fiscal filed a notice of appeal on December 28, 1967, and the appeal bond and record on appeal on January 3, 1968. Ago moved to dismiss the appeal on July 22, 1968, arguing it was filed out of time. The respondent Judge dismissed the appeal on July 26, 1968. 3. The Petition: The Provincial Board of Agusan and the Provincial Treasurer filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prohibition, seeking to annul the order dismissing their appeal. They argued that their motion for reconsideration suspended the period for perfecting the appeal. The respondents contended that the motion for reconsideration was pro forma and did not suspend the reglementary period. The Supreme Court found the motion for reconsideration to be pro forma because it failed to specifically point out the findings or conclusions contrary to law or evidence, thus not interrupting the appeal period.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was pro forma and thus did not suspend the reglementary period for appeal. Whether the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. The appeal was not perfected within the period prescribed by the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the motion for reconsideration and its effect on the reglementary period: The Court held that the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was pro forma. The motion merely pointed out what the trial court allegedly failed to consider, without specifically identifying the findings or conclusions not supported by evidence or contrary to law, and without making express reference to testimonial or documentary evidence or provisions of law. Such a motion, according to established jurisprudence, does not interrupt the running of the period for the perfection of appeals. The grounds cited, namely, failure to consider a condition in the "Advertisement for Rebidding" and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, were not specific enough to meet the requirements of Section 2, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration did not suspend the reglementary period for appeal. On whether the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period: The Court found that the petitioners received a copy of the trial court's decision on November 8, 1967. Their notice of appeal was filed on December 28, 1967, which was fifty (50) days after receipt of the decision. The appeal bond and record on appeal were filed on January 3, 1968, fifty-six (56) days after receipt of the decision. Since the reglementary period for appeal is thirty (30) days from notice of the decision, and a motion for reconsideration, if not pro forma, would suspend this period, the pro forma nature of the motion meant the period continued to run. Consequently, the appeal was filed long after the expiration of the reglementary period, rendering the dismissal by the respondent Judge proper.
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 provisions of law, is considered pro forma and does not interrupt the running of the period for the perfection of appeals.