L.T. Datu & Co., Inc. v. Joseph Sy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Joseph Sy, doing business as Akua Union Industrial Sales, sold hardware and construction materials to petitioner L.T. Datu & Company, Inc. from February to October 1997, amounting to ₱686,765.25. These purchases were charged with interest at 12% per annum after they fell due. Procedural History: On March 10, 1999, Sy demanded payment, but Datu failed to pay. Sy filed a complaint for collection on July 15, 1999. Despite an extension granted by the trial court, Datu failed to file an answer. The trial court declared Datu in default on October 15, 1999. Sy presented evidence ex parte, and on December 20, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision ordering Datu to pay Sy ₱686,765.25 plus 12% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint, ₱10,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs. The Petition: Datu received a copy of the decision on April 28, 2000. On May 19, 2000, Datu filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration, claiming it only learned of its counsel Atty. Bernoli Arquero's death in November 1999 (three months after his death on September 16, 1999) and had difficulty obtaining case records. The trial court denied the motion on May 29, 2000, finding it filed out of time. In an order dated June 30, 2000, the trial court reiterated its denial, also finding the motion pro forma for failing to state a good defense. Datu filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul these orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration on the ground that the same was filed out of time. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration on the ground that the same is pro forma. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner new trial.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and ordered the remand of the records to the Regional Trial Court for immediate execution of judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the motion for new trial/reconsideration: The Court noted that while a petition for review under Rule 45 is proper for judgments or final orders, it is not the remedy for an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration. The Court also observed that the issue of timeliness was arguably mooted by the trial court's June 30, 2000 order, which implicitly acknowledged the motion's timely filing by mail. However, the Court emphasized that the proper remedy for an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration is an appeal, not a petition for review on certiorari. The Court reiterated that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, and the timeliness and pro forma nature of a motion are questions of fact. On the pro forma nature of the motion: The Court stated that whether a motion for new trial or reconsideration is pro forma is a question of fact requiring a review of evidence, which is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari. The Court pointed out that by assailing the orders denying its motion, petitioner was collaterally attacking the main decision, which had already attained finality due to Datu's failure to file an appeal. The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly was invoked. On the denial of new trial: The Court found no reversible error in the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration. The Court reiterated that the petition for review on certiorari was an improper remedy for assailing interlocutory orders. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the main decision had become final and executory, and the petitioner's attempt to reopen the case through a motion for new trial or reconsideration, after failing to appeal, was an indirect attack on a final judgment. The Court concluded that the petition was without merit.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy to assail an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration, as such orders are interlocutory. Furthermore, the Supreme Court generally does not pass upon questions of fact, such as the timeliness and pro forma nature of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, which are within the purview of the trial court.