Dulos Realty & Development Corporation v. Honorable Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed on July 21, 1976, and subsequently amended on August 11, 1976, by Dulos Realty & Development Corporation against Samson Boats and Allied Industries, Inc., et al. The complaint sought the declaration of the existence of an easement of right of way, with preliminary mandatory injunction, and for legal redemption with preliminary prohibitory injunction, along with damages. Procedural History: After the parties joined issues, the case proceeded to pre-trial and then trial. However, the trial was repeatedly suspended and rescheduled. On April 4, 1984, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to prosecute. Petitioner claims to have received this dismissal order on November 22, 1985, and filed a motion for reconsideration by registered mail on December 6, 1985. The RTC denied this motion on March 11, 1986, deeming it filed beyond the 15-day period for appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied this petition, and subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied. The Petition: The present petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The core issue is the timeliness of petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed with the RTC. Petitioner argues that its motion was mailed on December 6, 1985, evidenced by an inverted date on the registry receipt, and that the RTC erred in considering it filed on December 9, 1985. Petitioner contends that the CA's affirmation of the RTC's finding, based on a rubber stamp impression on the motion itself, constituted a denial of due process. The respondents, however, maintain that the motion was filed on December 9, 1985, as indicated by the court's received stamp.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was timely filed. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED and the assailed resolutions are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Court found no showing that the registry receipt or envelope bearing the post office stamp of mailing was attached to the record when the lower court resolved the motion for reconsideration. The issue of the inverted date on the proof of mailing was raised for the first time on appeal before the Court of Appeals, where petitioner presented a mere xerox copy of the alleged registry receipt without a certification from the postmaster. Later, a "Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration" was filed, again attaching a xerox copy of an alleged certification from the postmaster. The Court of Appeals correctly found these to be unreliable without the original and official copy, and too late to present. The Court reiterated the principle that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, citing several cases. Furthermore, the Court noted that for nine years, petitioner had not finished presenting its first witness, and the case had been dismissed twice before for failure to prosecute, with the April 4, 1984 dismissal being the third such instance. The Court found no basis in fact and law for the petitioner's contention that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court defined "grave abuse of discretion" as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, characterized by arbitrary or despotic action, or evasion of duty. It found that such a situation did not obtain in this case. The findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the exact date of receipt of the motion for reconsideration were factual in nature and, as a general rule, not reviewable by the Supreme Court unless an exception applies. Given the circumstances, the Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of both lower courts.
Main Doctrine
The timeliness of filing a motion for reconsideration, especially when based on disputed proof of mailing, requires presentation of original evidence and official certifications in the lower court, not for the first time on appeal. Issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Factual findings of the trial court and Court of Appeals on such matters are generally not reviewable by the Supreme Court.