G.R. No. L-22633 October 31, 1969
JULIAN B. DACANAY, petitioner, vs. HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and CONSOLIDATED MINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Julian B. Dacanay filed a complaint against respondent Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) to recover a contingent fee for auditing services rendered in connection with CMI’s case against Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. The parties agreed at pre-trial that the sole issue was whether CMI had actually recovered amounts from Benguet for three specific items: shortages in chrome ore inventories, anomalies in salary/wage payments, and fictitious hauling of ore. The trial court, after Dacanay filed amended complaints, issued an order on July 15, 1963, dismissing one cause of action and ordering Dacanay to amend his complaint to allege ultimate facts supporting his claim of CMI’s recovery, warning of dismissal if not complied with. Dacanay filed a motion for reconsideration on August 6, 1963, which was denied. The court, in its order of August 29, 1963, reiterated its directive. Dacanay filed a second amended complaint on September 10, 1963. CMI moved to dismiss it. The court, by order of October 23, 1963, dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to comply with its previous orders. Dacanay received a copy on October 28, 1963. On November 21, 1963, Dacanay filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 23 order, praying for its setting aside and for an order directing CMI to answer. This was denied on December 14, 1963. On January 2, 1964, Dacanay filed a notice of appeal. The court initially approved his record on appeal on January 10, 1964, but upon CMI’s opposition, issued an order on January 23, 1964, dismissing the appeal as having been filed out of time. The court ruled that the motion for reconsideration filed on November 21, 1963, was pro forma and did not suspend the running of the 30-day appeal period, which expired on November 27, 1963. The court also cited the record on appeal’s failure to reproduce all pleadings. Dacanay’s motion for reconsideration of this order was denied on March 13, 1964. Hence, Dacanay filed this original petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to give due course to his appeal.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration dated November 21, 1963, was pro forma, thereby not suspending the running of the period to appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the motion for reconsideration was pro forma. A pro forma motion is one that does not contain new arguments to persuade the court to reconsider its order but merely reiterates issues already passed upon. The Court found that Dacanay’s motion for reconsideration of November 21, 1963, merely reiterated the same arguments and issues that had already been raised in his previous motion for reconsideration (of August 6, 1963) and fully considered and rejected by the court in its orders of July 15, August 29, and October 23, 1963. The motion did not point out any new matter not already considered, nor did it specify any finding of fact or conclusion of law allegedly not supported by evidence or contrary to law. The mere citation or amplification of authorities on the same argument does not remove a motion from being pro forma. Consequently, the motion did not suspend the running of the 30-day appeal period from notice of the October 23, 1963 order. The period expired on November 27, 1963, making the notice of appeal filed on January 2, 1964, untimely. The respondent judge therefore correctly dismissed the appeal. The petition for mandamus was denied.