GR 143701; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143701 ; March 23, 2004
L.T. DATU & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. JOSEPH SY, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Joseph Sy filed a collection suit against petitioner L.T. Datu & Co., Inc. for unpaid hardware purchases. The trial court granted Datu an extension, through its counsel Atty. Bernoli Arquero, to file an answer. Datu failed to file the answer, and Atty. Arquero died three days after the extended deadline. Consequently, the trial court declared Datu in default, allowed Sy to present evidence ex parte, and rendered a judgment ordering Datu to pay the principal amount plus interest and attorney’s fees.
Datu received the decision on April 28, 2000, and filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration on May 19, 2000. It claimed it only learned of its counsel’s death in November 1999 and had difficulty retrieving case records. The trial court issued two orders denying the motion. The first order, dated May 29, 2000, declared the motion was filed out of time. The second order, dated June 30, 2000, while implying the motion was timely filed by mail, denied it for being pro forma, noting it failed to allege a good and substantial defense.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court clarified that a petition for review under Rule 45 is an improper remedy to assail an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration, as such an order is not appealable under the Rules of Court. By challenging the denial orders, Datu was indirectly attacking the trial court’s main decision, which had already attained finality after Datu failed to perfect a timely appeal from the judgment itself.
On the procedural points, the Court noted the trial court’s second order mooted the timeliness issue by recognizing the motion was filed by mail within the reglementary period. However, the Court upheld the denial on the ground that the motion was pro forma. The determination of whether a motion is pro forma involves a question of fact, which is beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law. The Court emphasized it is not its function to re-evaluate factual findings. Since the decision had become final and executory, the petition constituted an impermissible collateral attack. No reversible error was found in the assailed orders.