Guico v. Mayuga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eduardo C. Guico filed petitions for writs of mandamus with the Court of Appeals, seeking to compel the Court of First Instance of Rizal to approve and certify his bills of exceptions in registration proceedings Nos. 657 and 976. Procedural History: Guico received the decision on August 21, 1935, filed an exception and motion for new trial on September 5, 1935. This motion was denied on September 26, 1935, and Guico received notice on September 28, 1935. He then filed an exception and a motion for reconsideration on the same date, based on the same grounds. The motion for reconsideration was denied on November 5, 1935, and Guico was notified on November 7, 1935. On November 12, 1935, he filed an exception. On November 21, 1935, Guico filed a "Pieza de Excepciones Adicionales," adopting the joint bill of exceptions of other appellants, which was disapproved for being out of time. The Petition: Guico sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' denial of his mandamus petitions, arguing that his bill of exceptions was erroneously disapproved because his motion for reconsideration suspended the period for appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner suspended the running of the period for perfecting his appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disapproving the bill of exceptions as having been filed out of time.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that it is without jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the Court of Appeals as no question of law was raised.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the motion for reconsideration suspended the running of the period for perfecting his appeal: The Court found that both the motion for new trial and the motion for reconsideration were based on identical grounds. These grounds, including the petition in their prayer, were passed upon and decided in the order denying the motion for new trial. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration did not suspend the running of the period for perfecting the appeal. The period for appeal expired on October 13, 1935, and the bill of exceptions was filed on November 21, 1935, which was 39 days late. On whether the Court of Appeals erred in disapproving the bill of exceptions as having been filed out of time: Based on the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which are conclusive, the bill of exceptions was indeed filed out of time. The petitioner's allegation that his bill of exceptions was filed on time was not supported by the facts. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly denied the mandamus petitions seeking to compel the approval of the out-of-time bill of exceptions. The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law, and the determination of whether the motions suspended the appeal period depended on findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration based on grounds identical to those raised in a prior motion for new trial, which grounds were already passed upon and decided by the court, does not suspend the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.