G.R. No. 193034 , July 20, 2015
RODGING REYES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SALUD M. GEGATO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodging Reyes was charged with Grave Threats before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bayugan and Sibagat, Agusan del Sur, based on a complaint by private respondent Salud M. Gegato. The information alleged that on October 16, 2001, petitioner threatened Gegato by telephone, stating, “SALUD, UNDANGA ANG IM ONG PAGSIGI UG TSISMIS SA AKONG ASAWA, KAY MAULAWAN ANG AKONG ASAWA. WARNINGAN TAKA AYAW PANG HILABOT SA AMONG KINABUHI KAY BASIN PATYON TAKA,” which translates to a threat to kill her. Before arraignment, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on jurisdictional grounds and argued the crime was Other Light Threats, not Grave Threats. The MCTC denied the motion and, after trial, found petitioner guilty of Grave Threats, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to pay moral damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) modified the conviction to Other Light Threats, reduced the imprisonment, and modified the civil liabilities. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Amended Decision, further reducing the damages. Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review, followed by a second Motion for Extension, and then his petition. The CA dismissed the petition for being filed beyond the reglementary period, failure to pay complete docket fees, failure to indicate a complete statement of material dates, and failure to attach pertinent documents. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied for failure to furnish copies to the Solicitor General and private respondent. Petitioner then filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA granted, setting aside the denial of the first motion but ultimately denying the first motion and dismissing the petition with finality. Petitioner filed a third Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA noted without action. Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s petition for review based on procedural grounds, thereby allegedly violating his constitutional right to due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court emphasized that second and subsequent motions for reconsideration are generally prohibited under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, based on the tenet of immutability of judgments. While exceptions exist to prevent grave injustice, as outlined in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, the circumstances of this case did not warrant relaxation of the rules. The CA had found petitioner’s reasons for procedural lapses, such as inadvertence, not compelling enough to disregard the mandates of Rule 42, Section 3 of the Rules. The Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General’s observation that condoning petitioner’s filing of a third motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading, would lead to an absurd situation where he could unilaterally suspend the reglementary period to appeal. The CA had already acted favorably on the second motion but ultimately dismissed the petition with finality. Petitioner’s failure to present compelling justification for relaxing procedural rules meant the CA’s dismissal based on procedural infirmities was proper, and no denial of due process occurred.