GR L 6089; (April, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6089; April 20, 1954
VICENTE YLANAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AQUILINO O. MERCADO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Vicente Ylanan, filed an action in the Municipal Court of Cebu City to recover from the defendant, Aquilino O. Mercado, the sum of P180.50 as the balance for furniture and goods sold and delivered. The principal factual issue at trial was the authenticity of Mercado’s signature on Exhibit A. The municipal court ruled in favor of Ylanan, rendering judgment on November 18, 1949, with notice received by Mercado on November 21, 1949. On December 2, 1949, Mercado filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the decision was unjustified because an expert witness had testified that the signature on Exhibit A was forged, and he requested that the National Bureau of Investigation examine the disputed signature. The municipal court denied the motion. Mercado then appealed to the Court of First Instance. The appeal was perfected within fourteen days if the time taken by the court to decide the motion for reconsideration was excluded. After Mercado filed his answer in the Court of First Instance, Ylanan moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period, arguing that the motion for reconsideration was pro forma and did not suspend the period for perfecting an appeal. The Court of First Instance granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the grounds for the motion for reconsideration did not align with those required for a motion for new trial under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the defendant in the municipal court was a pro forma motion, thereby failing to suspend the period for perfecting an appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the motion for reconsideration was not pro forma. The motion specifically pointed out that the trial court’s finding on the authenticity of the signature in Exhibit A was not justified by the evidence, particularly citing the expert witness’s testimony denying its authenticity. This constituted a valid challenge to the evidence supporting the decision. Consequently, the motion was not pro forma and effectively suspended the period for perfecting the appeal. The Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the appeal. The order of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings.