G.R. No. 140974, July 11, 2001
RAMON ORO, petitioner, vs. JUDGE GERARDO D. DIAZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo; and DONATO MANEJERO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramon Oro filed an action for damages against private respondent Donato Manejero, his tenant, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumangas, Iloilo. The damages allegedly arose from Manejero’s malicious act of delaying a prior DARAB case and not paying rentals during its pendency. The RTC, presided by respondent Judge Gerardo D. Diaz, dismissed Oro’s complaint via an Order dated May 19, 1999, which Oro received on June 2, 1999. On June 14, 1999, Oro filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC denied this motion in an Order dated July 27, 1999, ruling it was pro-forma as it merely rehashed arguments already passed upon. Oro received the denial order on August 19, 1999. On August 26, 1999, Oro filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC disapproved this Notice of Appeal in an Order dated September 15, 1999, holding that the motion for reconsideration, being pro-forma, did not toll the 15-day reglementary period to appeal. Consequently, the Notice of Appeal filed on August 26, 1999, was filed out of time, as the period to appeal from the May 19, 1999 dismissal order had already lapsed. Oro challenged this RTC Order via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the Notice of Appeal for having been filed out of time.

RULING

No, the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s Order. The power of a trial court to disallow a notice of appeal filed out of time is expressly recognized by the Rules of Court. The approval of a notice of appeal becomes a ministerial duty only when the appeal is filed on time; otherwise, the court has the discretion to refuse it. The RTC correctly ruled that Oro’s motion for reconsideration was pro-forma, as it raised no new matters and merely reiterated issues already resolved. Under Section 2, Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a pro-forma motion for reconsideration does not toll the reglementary period to appeal. Since the motion did not interrupt the 15-day period, Oro’s period to appeal from the May 19, 1999 order expired without him filing a notice of appeal. The notice filed on August 26, 1999, was therefore belated. Perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The RTC’s disapproval of the late notice was a proper exercise of its discretion, not a grave abuse thereof. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed RTC Order.