Fernandez v. Olivares
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an unlawful detainer complaint filed by Concepcion Olivares against Atty. Jesus Fernandez. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) initially dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient cause of action. However, upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC's decision, ordering Fernandez to pay rental arrearages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs. Procedural History: Fernandez received the RTC's decision on May 2, 1994, and filed a motion for reconsideration on May 12, 1994. This motion was denied on November 29, 1994. Subsequently, Fernandez filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) on December 1, 1994, which was granted. Meanwhile, on December 9, 1994, Fernandez filed a motion for new trial with the RTC, citing newly discovered evidence. The RTC denied this motion on February 6, 1995, reasoning that the CA had already acquired jurisdiction. The RTC later denied Fernandez's motion for reconsideration of this order and granted Olivares' motion for execution of judgment on January 30, 1996. This led Fernandez to file a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the CA. The CA initially issued a temporary restraining order but ultimately denied Fernandez's petition and affirmed the RTC's stance in a decision dated May 16, 1997, which was later denied reconsideration. The Petition: Fernandez filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, raising the sole issue of whether the mere filing of a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review, which was later withdrawn, automatically divested the RTC of its jurisdiction to entertain a motion for new trial. The Supreme Court, however, found that the core issue was the timeliness of the motion for new trial. It determined that the period for filing a motion for new trial, which must be within the period for appeal (15 days from notice of judgment), cannot be extended. Since Fernandez's motion for new trial was filed beyond this period, it was deemed filed out of time, leading to the denial of his petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which was later withdrawn, automatically divested the Regional Trial Court of its jurisdiction to entertain a motion for new trial. Whether the motion for new trial filed by the petitioner was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 46, is ordered to execute the decision dated May 2, 1994, in Civil Case No. 93-67034.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court clarified that the mere filing of a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals does not automatically divest the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of its jurisdiction. For the appellate court's jurisdiction to attach, the petitioner must invoke its jurisdiction within the time for doing so, file the petition for review within the prescribed period, and pay the necessary docket fees. In this case, Fernandez merely filed a motion for extension and did not file the petition itself. Therefore, the Court of Appeals had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the case, and the RTC retained its jurisdiction to act on the motion for new trial. The Court noted that the RTC retains residual jurisdiction for specific instances even after an appeal is perfected, but in this scenario, no appeal was perfected, and the records had not yet been transmitted. On the timeliness of the motion for new trial: The Court found that Fernandez's motion for new trial was filed out of time. The period for filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration is within the period for taking an appeal, which is fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment. This period is interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration, but no motion for extension of time to file such motions is allowed before courts lower than the Supreme Court. Fernandez received the RTC decision on June 28, 1994. He filed a motion for reconsideration on July 12, 1994 (14 days after receipt), which was denied on November 29, 1994. This left him with only one day, December 1, 1994, to file a motion for new trial. Instead of filing the motion for new trial with the RTC, he filed a motion for extension of time with the CA on December 1, 1994. His subsequent motion for new trial filed with the RTC on December 9, 1994, was therefore filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court reiterated the rule established in Habaluyas v. Japzon that motions for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration are not allowed before courts lower than the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review before the Court of Appeals does not automatically divest the Regional Trial Court of its jurisdiction to act on a motion for new trial, especially when the petition for review itself has not yet been given due course. However, a motion for new trial must be filed within the reglementary period to appeal, and this period cannot be extended.