Levett v. Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves a civil case initiated by A. Levett against Jose Sy Quia and others, with the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. as a defendant. The specifics of the original claim or the nature of the dispute between the parties are not detailed in this excerpt, which focuses solely on the procedural aspects of the appeal. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance rendered a decision against the defendants-appellants, including the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., who received notice on February 13, 1935. On March 11, 1935, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. This motion was denied, and notice of the denial was received on March 19, 1935. Subsequently, on March 21, 1935, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was also denied by an order dated March 25, 1935, with notice received on March 27, 1935. On the same date, March 27, 1935, the appellant excepted to the denial and filed its notice of appeal. A bill of exceptions was then presented on April 6, 1935. 3. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court on a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellee, A. Levett. The motion argues that the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. Specifically, it contends that the filing of a motion for reconsideration, followed by a motion for a new trial on similar grounds, did not suspend the periods for filing the notice of appeal and the bill of exceptions. The appellee asserts that the periods for filing the notice of appeal (five days after notice of denial of reconsideration) and the bill of exceptions (ten days) were exceeded, rendering the appealed decision final and the subsequent appeal proceedings void.
Issue(s)
Whether a motion for a new trial filed after a motion for reconsideration based on the same grounds suspends the period for filing the exception and notice of appeal.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the dismissal of the appeal taken by the defendant the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., is ordered.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that a motion for a new trial does not suspend the five-day period for filing a notice of appeal if it is based on the same grounds as a previously denied motion for reconsideration. The Court noted that the defendant waited twenty-six days before filing its first motion, leaving only four days of the thirty-day limit. Upon receiving the notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration on March 19, the remaining period began to run immediately. The filing of a second motion on March 21, which raised no new arguments, was insufficient to toll the five-day period for filing the exception and notice of appeal. Applying the principle in Aquino vs. Tongco, the Court found that by the time the notice of appeal was filed on March 27, eight days had already elapsed since the notice of the first denial. Furthermore, the bill of exceptions filed eighteen days after said notice was significantly beyond the ten-day limit allowed by law. Therefore, the judgment had become final and executory, and the lower court's approval of the bill of exceptions was void for lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A motion for a new trial filed after a motion for reconsideration based on the same grounds is denied, does not suspend the period of five days for the filing of the exception and notice of appeal. Failure to file an exception and notice of appeal within five days after notice of the order denying the motion for reconsideration having the nature of a motion for a new trial, makes the judgment appealed from final and executory. A bill of exceptions filed eighteen days after receipt of notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration is late and the approval thereof by the court is null and void, having been made without jurisdiction.