Marcial v. Hi-Cement Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Domingo Marcial filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondents Agapito Lloce, Victoriano Muring, and Venerando Gambe, alleging that they forcibly entered his land on April 11, 1995. The respondents, employees of Hi-Cement Corporation (HCC), claimed HCC had been in possession of the property under an agreement with the owner. A relocation survey was conducted, indicating an approximate 7,001 square meter intrusion. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondents to vacate the encroached area and pay damages. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), on appeal, reversed the MTC's decision, dismissing the petitioner's complaint for failure to prove his better right to possession by a preponderance of evidence. Procedural History: Following the MTC's judgment in favor of petitioner Domingo Marcial, the respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC reversed the MTC's decision on January 26, 2000, dismissing the complaint. Petitioner received the RTC decision on February 11, 2000, filed a motion for reconsideration on February 26, 2000, which was denied by the RTC on May 15, 2000. Petitioner received the denial on May 23, 2000. The petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC on May 24, 2000, which the RTC denied on May 29, 2000, stating it was an improper mode of appeal. Three days prior, on May 26, 2000, the petitioner had filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The petitioner seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolutions dated June 2, 2000, which denied his motion for extension of time to file a petition for review, and August 16, 2000, which denied his motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argues that his first motion for extension, filed on May 26, 2000, was timely, as the period to file the petition for review commenced on May 23, 2000, the date he received the RTC's denial of his motion for reconsideration. He also contends that he has a meritorious case and that the respondents are estopped from denying his ownership. The CA, however, found the first motion for extension to be ambiguous and lacking a prayer or specific period sought, rendering it fatally defective. The Supreme Court, while noting the CA erred in its initial assessment of timeliness, found the first motion defective and remanded the case to the CA for proper action on the amended motion for extension.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the first and only motion for extension of time to file a petition for review, specifically considering the ambiguous averments regarding the receipt of the RTC decision and the denial of the motion for reconsideration, and the defects in the original and amended motions for extension. Whether the Regional Trial Court erred or committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the decision of the Municipal Trial Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated June 2, 2000 and August 16, 2000, and REMANDED the case to the CA for further proceedings and appropriate action. The Court found that the CA erred in denying the petitioner's first motion for extension due to confusion in the dates but noted that the motion was fatally defective for failing to state the relief sought. However, the Court also noted that an amended motion for extension was filed within the reglementary period, and the CA should have acted on it.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' denial of the motion for extension: The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in denying the petitioner's first motion for extension of time to file a petition for review. This error stemmed from confusion arising from the ambiguous averments in the motion regarding the receipt of the RTC decision and the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Court clarified that the reckoning date for filing the motion for extension was May 23, 2000, when the petitioner received the order denying his motion for reconsideration, making the first motion for extension filed on May 26, 2000, timely. However, the Court also acknowledged that the first motion for extension was fatally defective because it failed to state the relief sought, rendering it a mere scrap of paper with no legal effect, as per Section 3, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Despite this defect, the Court pointed out that an amended motion for extension was filed on June 7, 2000, which was fifteen days from May 23, 2000, and thus within the reglementary period. The CA should have acted on this amended motion. Consequently, the CA acted with precipitate haste in denying the motion for reconsideration without considering the amended motion for extension. The Supreme Court held that the case should be remanded to the CA for proper action on the amended motion for extension. On the issue of the Regional Trial Court's decision: There was no ratio provided for this issue.
Main Doctrine
A motion for extension of time to file a petition for review is fatally defective if it fails to state the relief sought. However, an amended motion for extension, filed within the reglementary period, should be acted upon by the appellate court.