Gesmundo v. Gesmundo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed a complaint for Recovery of Property and Partition against respondents, alleging deprivation of their rightful shares in the estate of the deceased Felix Gesmundo. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision adjudging the validity of certain deeds of sale and deeds of partition, and declared that petitioners had no cause of action as their forbears had already ceded their rights. However, the RTC ordered the delivery of specific portions of a parcel of land to the heirs of Federico Gesmundo and Manuel Gesmundo, Sr., and ordered the subdivision of the lot. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal which was given due course. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed their appeal for failure to file the appellants' brief. Petitioners filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration and their appellants' brief via private messengerial service on December 29, 2000. The CA received the motion on January 3, 2001, and denied it for being filed out of time, reiterating its dismissal resolution. The Petition: Petitioners seek reversal of the CA resolutions, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing their appeal and motion for reconsideration, citing a secretary's stroke as reason for delay and urging liberal application of rules in the interest of substantial justice, considering the holiday season.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appellants' brief. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated November 21, 2000, and March 1, 2001, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal: The Court found that petitioners were granted a total of 120 days to file their appellants' brief. Despite this extended period, they failed to submit the brief, leading to the CA's rightful dismissal of their appeal. The reason provided for the delay, involving a secretary suffering a stroke, was deemed a flimsy and unacceptable excuse for the counsel's inability to meet the deadline within such a lengthy period. On the denial of the motion for reconsideration: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. Petitioners dispatched their motion via private messengerial service on December 29, 2000, the last day for filing, but it was only received by the CA on January 3, 2001. Pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules of the CA, such filings are deemed filed only upon actual receipt. Therefore, the motion was five days late, and the CA correctly denied it as the judgment had already attained finality. The Court reiterated the principle that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration sent via private messengerial service is deemed filed only on the date of actual receipt by the court, and if received beyond the reglementary period, the appeal is dismissed as the judgment has attained finality.