Jesena v. Hervas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a petition for compulsory recognition filed by Yrel Alcala Torres Jesena, represented by his mother, against the widow and children of the deceased Orlando Jesena, Sr. The petitioner claimed to be the illegitimate child of the deceased. The trial court, however, rendered a decision on July 26, 1977, adjudging that the petitioner was not the illegitimate child of Orlando Jesena, Sr., and thus denied the action for compulsory recognition. Procedural History: Following the trial court's decision on July 26, 1977, which petitioner received on August 9, 1977, a motion for reconsideration was filed on August 18, 1977. This motion was denied by the court on September 22, 1977, and petitioner received this order on September 27, 1977. Subsequently, on September 29, 1977, petitioner filed an urgent motion to appeal as a pauper. Private respondents filed a motion to declare the decision final and executory and opposed the pauper's appeal on October 5, 1977. Petitioner also filed a notice of appeal and a record on appeal on October 5, 1977. Hearings were scheduled and reset for various incidents, including the pauper's appeal, the motion to declare the decision final, and the approval of the record on appeal. Petitioner and his counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearings. On October 12, 1977, the respondent Judge dismissed the motion to appeal as pauper and declared the judgment final and executory. The Petition: This petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction seeks to nullify the October 12, 1977 order of the respondent Judge. Petitioner argues that the Judge acted capriciously, arbitrarily, and with abuse of discretion in dismissing the motion to appeal as pauper and declaring the judgment final and executory. The petition contends that the Judge unlawfully neglected a duty enjoined by law, amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and required respondents to comment, ultimately dismissing the petition for lack of merit, finding the motion for reconsideration to be pro forma and thus not suspending the reglementary period for appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioner's motion to appeal as pauper and in declaring the judgment final and executory. Whether the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was pro forma, thereby failing to suspend the reglementary period for appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The temporary restraining order issued is lifted and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the respondent judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal of the petitioner's motion to appeal as pauper and the declaration of the judgment as final and executory were based on the petitioner's failure to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period. This failure stemmed from the fact that his motion for reconsideration was deemed pro forma. The repeated absences of the petitioner and his counsel from scheduled hearings further supported the trial court's actions. The Court emphasized that certiorari is a remedy for errors of jurisdiction, not mere errors of judgment or procedure, and that the petitioner had not demonstrated any such jurisdictional error. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the respondent judge's finding that the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was pro forma. The motion merely alleged in general terms that the decision was contrary to law and evidence, without specifying which findings or conclusions were unsupported or erroneous, and without referencing specific testimonial or documentary evidence or legal provisions. This lack of specificity rendered the motion pro forma, as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 2, last paragraph, of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. A pro forma motion for reconsideration does not suspend the running of the period for appeal. Therefore, the 30-day period for appeal, which began on August 10, 1977, expired on September 8, 1977, making the judgment final and executory.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a motion for reconsideration which is merely pro forma, meaning it lacks specific grounds and fails to point out with particularity the errors of law or fact, does not suspend the reglementary period for appeal. Consequently, if such a motion is filed, the judgment becomes final and executory, and any subsequent appeal or petition for certiorari filed beyond the original appeal period will be dismissed for lack of merit.