GR L 15714; (April, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15714; April 23, 1962
LORENZA FABIAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Pedro Interior sued the Fabian spouses in the Justice of the Peace Court of Caloocan to collect an unpaid balance for goods purchased on credit. After losing, the Fabians appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Following trial, the court dismissed Interior’s complaint on September 6, 1958, finding that the receipts showed the defendants had overpaid. Interior received notice of this judgment on October 7, 1958. On October 18, 1958, he filed a “Petition for Relief from Judgment,” which he later admitted was, in substance, a motion for new trial, arguing the decision was contrary to the evidence and his counsel’s failure to present certain evidence was due to excusable negligence. The court denied this petition on December 8, 1958.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting a motion for reconsideration and ordering a new trial after its decision had allegedly become final and executory.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, annulling the trial court’s order for a new trial. The legal logic centers on the finality of judgments and the proper procedure for motions for new trial. The Court ruled that Interior’s “Petition for Relief from Judgment” filed on October 18, 1958, was legally treated as a motion for new trial. Under the Rules of Court, a second motion for new trial is only permissible if based on a ground not existing when the first motion was made. Here, the subsequent “Urgent Motion for New Trial” filed on December 27, 1958, was a mere reiteration based on identical grounds. Therefore, this second motion did not suspend the running of the period to appeal.
Consequently, the period for appeal must be computed as follows: The 30-day period began upon notice of judgment on October 7, 1958. Eleven days lapsed before the first motion (new trial) was filed on October 18, which suspended the period. The suspension lasted until Interior received notice of the denial on December 15, 1958. The remaining 19 days of the appeal period resumed on December 16 and expired on January 3, 1959. All subsequent motions, including the motion for reconsideration granted by the trial court on May 4, 1959, were filed after this expiration date. Thus, the September 6, 1958 decision had already attained finality, and the trial court lost jurisdiction to alter it. Its order for a new trial was issued without jurisdiction.