Lopez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon declared the marriage between Cherry Pie Lopez and Alberto Lopez a.k.a Cesar Lopez (petitioner) null and void. This decision became final and executory. Procedural History: The petitioner moved to reconsider the support aspect of the decision, which was denied. He then filed a Notice of Appeal, which the RTC gave due course. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the full docket fees. The petitioner's subsequent motions for reconsideration of the dismissal were also denied by the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The petitioner seeks to nullify the resolutions of the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court noted that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the proper vehicle for assailing final resolutions of the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, the Court found the petition dismissible for having been filed out of time, as the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the March 19, 2001 Resolution was considered a mere scrap of paper for failing to comply with service and timeliness requirements, thus not tolling the reglementary period.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of full docket fees. Whether the petitioner's motions for reconsideration tolled the reglementary period to file the petition; and whether the petition was timely filed.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal. The petitioner's motions for reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that since the petitioner assailed final resolutions of the Court of Appeals, he should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. On this ground alone, the petition should be dismissed. On the dismissal of the appeal: Even if a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 were allowed in the greater interest of justice, the petition would still be dismissible for having been filed out of time. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to pay the full docket fees required for the appeal. On the tolling of the reglementary period and timeliness of the petition: The Court emphasized that the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the March 19, 2001 Resolution did not contain an affidavit or proof of service as required by Section 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, nor did it state the material dates to determine its timeliness. Consequently, it was considered a mere scrap of paper and did not toll the running of the period to file the motion. The petitioner did not even state when he received the resolution, making it impossible to determine when the reglementary period expired. Assuming the petitioner received the March 19, 2001 Resolution on the date it was promulgated, he had 60 days or until May 18, 2001, to file the petition under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. However, he filed the petition only on July 4, 2001, which was clearly out of time.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that fails to comply with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, such as the absence of an affidavit or proof of service and the omission of material dates to determine its timeliness, is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not toll the running of the period to file the motion.