Oro v. Diaz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ramon Oro filed an action for Damages against private respondent Donato Manejero before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) after a previous DARAB case for collection of rentals and ejectment was decided. The RTC dismissed petitioner's complaint. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC. Procedural History: The RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on July 27, 1999, finding it pro forma. Petitioner received this order on August 19, 1999. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on August 26, 1999. The RTC disapproved the Notice of Appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's Order disapproving his Notice of Appeal, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the notice of appeal. Whether the private respondent is liable for damages as claimed by the petitioner before the lower court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition and affirmed the assailed Order of the RTC. The Court held that the RTC correctly disapproved the Notice of Appeal as it was filed out of time and improperly directed against an order denying a motion for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the notice of appeal: The Court reiterated that the trial court has the express power to disallow or disapprove a notice of appeal filed out of time, as provided under Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The approval of a notice of appeal becomes a ministerial duty only when the appeal is filed on time. In this case, the RTC correctly found that the Notice of Appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period. Even if the motion for reconsideration was not pro forma, the 15-day period to appeal was interrupted when petitioner filed his motion. However, after the denial of the motion for reconsideration, petitioner only had three days left to file his appeal, but he filed it four days late. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an appeal should be directed against the judgment or final order disposing of the case, not against an order denying a motion for reconsideration, as provided in Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The remedy against an order denying a motion for reconsideration is a special civil action under Rule 65. On the issue of liability for damages: The Court held that a discussion of damages could no longer be entertained due to the lateness of the appeal, the impropriety of the mode of review, and the consequent finality of the assailed Order. The Court reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction and does not include a review of the evaluation of evidence or factual findings. It cannot be a substitute for a lapsed appeal.
Main Doctrine
The trial court has the power to dismiss an appeal filed out of time. A pro forma motion for reconsideration does not toll the reglementary period to appeal. Furthermore, an appeal cannot be taken from an order denying a motion for reconsideration; the remedy is an appeal from the judgment or final order disposing of the case.