GR 42421; (October, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 42421; October 12, 1934
MAX BLOUSE, petitioner, vs. AMALIA MORENO and EULALIO GARCIA, in his capacity as Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial District, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Max Blouse obtained a judgment against respondent Amalia Moreno on September 30, 1933, for a debt and foreclosure of a mortgage. On October 24, 1933, Moreno filed a “motion for reconsideration,” arguing the evidence was insufficient and the decision was against the law, and praying for dismissal of the case. The trial court overruled this motion on March 10, 1934. Instead of appealing, Moreno filed another motion for new trial on March 16, 1934, which was overruled on August 11, 1934. Blouse then petitioned for a writ of execution, which the respondent judge denied. Blouse filed this original proceeding for mandamus to compel issuance of the writ of execution.
ISSUE
Whether the “motion for reconsideration” filed by Moreno on October 24, 1933, was effectively a motion for new trial under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby affecting the finality of the judgment and the right to execution.
RULING
Yes. The “motion for reconsideration,” despite its title, was substantively a motion for new trial under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it was based on grounds that the evidence was insufficient and the decision was against the law. Following Pascua vs. Ocampo, a motion for reconsideration not based on the grounds in Section 145 does not suspend the period for finality. Here, the motion did invoke those grounds, so it suspended the period. However, it was overruled on March 10, 1934, and Moreno’s subsequent motion for new trial was a prohibited second motion. The judgment thus became final after March 10, 1934. The respondent judge erred in denying the petition for execution. The Court granted the petition, treating it as certiorari, reversed the denial, and directed issuance of the writ of execution, with costs against Moreno.
AI Generated by Armztrong.