G.R. No. L-13126, December 29, 1959
Federico, Leonor, Adelaida, Aranzazu, Josefina and Jaime, all surnamed De Los Angeles, petitioners, vs. Hon. Sotero Cabahug, et al., respondents.

FACTS

In CA- G.R. No. 16631 -R, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on June 20, 1957. The defendants (petitioners herein) moved for an extension to file a motion for reconsideration on July 8, 1957. The plaintiff opposed, claiming the motion was filed out of time because defendants received the decision copy on June 21, 1957. Defendants replied they received it only on June 24, 1957. Despite their pending motion, defendants filed two more motions for extension and eventually a motion for reconsideration on July 25, 1957, which the plaintiff moved to strike as untimely. On July 26, 1957, the respondent court denied the first motion for extension, finding it was filed out of time. Entry of Judgment was made on July 30, 1957. The court subsequently denied the other motions for extension and the motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners filed this special civil action to annul the resolutions denying their motions and the entry of judgment, and to compel the respondent court to receive evidence on the actual date of receipt. They alleged their counsel received the decision copy on June 24, 1957, not June 21. They claimed the janitor in their counsel’s office mistakenly stamped “June 21, 1957” on the delivery receipt, and that Atty. Bernardo P. Pardo, upon noticing the error, superimposed the correct date by changing the “1” to “4,” initialed the correction, and wrote the correct date under his signature.
The respondent court, examining its records, found the delivery receipt had been tampered with. The court messenger’s report dated June 22, 1957, indicated delivery to petitioners’ counsel on June 21, while his June 25, 1957 report made no mention of such delivery. Certifications from court clerks supported that the receipt was received in the Judgment Section on June 22, 1957. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s counsel, whose office was in the same building, received his copy at 3:37 p.m. on June 21, and the receipt for petitioners’ counsel was stamped “3:40 p.m., June 21, 1957.” Furthermore, another delivery receipt for a different case delivered to petitioners’ counsel at 3:35 p.m. on June 24, 1957, bore the correct date from the same stamping machine, negating petitioners’ claim of a malfunction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions for extension and reconsideration, and in refusing to receive further evidence on the date of receipt of the decision, based on its examination of its own records.

RULING

No, the respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The court was fully justified in relying on its official records to determine the date of receipt. Under Section 5, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions, such as facts ascertainable from the court’s own records, are subject to judicial notice without the introduction of proof. The respondent court had before it sufficient evidence—the tampered delivery receipt, the court messenger’s reports, certifications from court employees, and pleadings—to conclude that petitioners’ counsel received the decision copy on June 21, 1957, making their subsequent motions untimely. Petitioners never formally sought to present evidence on this matter before the respondent court, and even in their petition to the Supreme Court, they failed to specify what additional evidence they would present. Their explanations were contradicted by the court’s records and the consistent reports of disinterested court personnel. Therefore, the petition for certiorari and mandamus was denied.