G.R. No. L-18278 March 30, 1967
MANUEL BERNABE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (3rd Division), HON. NICASIO YATCO, Presiding Judge of Branch V of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) and RESURRECCION S. REYES, respondents.

FACTS

Resurreccion S. Reyes filed a complaint against Manuel Bernabe for acknowledgment of her minor child as his natural child, support, and damages. Bernabe filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. After Bernabe filed his answer, the case was set for hearing. Despite receiving notice, neither Bernabe nor his counsel appeared at the hearing, believing a motion for postponement filed by Reyes would be granted. The trial court proceeded with the hearing, received evidence from Reyes, and rendered a decision ordering Bernabe to acknowledge the child and pay alimony, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Bernabe received a copy of the decision on November 7, 1960. On November 12, 1960, he filed a “motion to set aside decision and/or for new trial,” which was denied on November 25, 1960. Bernabe’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 10, 1960. On January 6, 1961, Bernabe filed a notice of appeal from the orders of August 30, November 25, and December 10, 1960, along with his appeal bond and record on appeal. The lower court disapproved the record on appeal, holding the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals dismissed Bernabe’s petition for mandamus to compel the lower court to give due course to his appeal, ruling the decision of October 28, 1960, was final and executory and the orders appealed from were interlocutory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus, holding that the decision of October 28, 1960, had become final and executory and that the orders appealed from were interlocutory and not appealable.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s order. The Court held that Bernabe’s “motion to set aside decision and/or for new trial” filed on November 12, 1960, suspended the running of the period to appeal from the decision of October 28, 1960. When that motion was denied, his only remedy was to appeal from the decision itself, and in connection with that appeal, he could have assailed the order denying the new trial. The orders of November 25 and December 10, 1960, denying the motion for new trial and reconsideration, were interlocutory in nature because the judgment sought to be annulled was not yet final. The cases cited by Bernabe regarding appeals from orders denying motions for relief under Rule 38 were inapplicable, as such relief is only available when a decision is final and executory and a new trial is not available, which was not the situation here. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial, as Bernabe had no reasonable ground to assume the postponement would be granted and no affidavit of merit was attached to the motion. Therefore, the decision had become final and executory, and the petition for mandamus was properly dismissed.