G.R. No. L-21850. April 29, 1977.
LUIS CAMACHO, CAYETANO CURA and ISMAELA TUAZON, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FILOMENA M. TINIO and JOSE C. ALFONSO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners sought certiorari to review a Court of Appeals decision. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the original petition on September 26, 1963. Petitioner Luis Camacho received notice on October 16 and was granted an extension until November 15, 1963, to file a motion for reconsideration. The other petitioners, Cura and Tuazon, did not seek an extension. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, all petitioners filed an amended petition on November 15, despite the Court having denied their motion for leave to file it the previous day. The Court dismissed this amended petition on November 25, 1963.
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration of that dismissal on December 14, which was denied on December 18. Notice of this denial was served on December 20. Without securing leave of court, petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration on December 23, 1963. Subsequently, in a resolution dated January 8, 1964, the Court reconsidered its earlier dismissals and gave due course to the amended petition. The present resolution re-examines the propriety of that January 8, 1964 action.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction to reconsider and give due course to the amended petition via its resolution of January 8, 1964.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court had lost jurisdiction. The legal logic centers on the finality of judgments and the strict computation of procedural periods under the then-governing 1940 Rules of Court. The dismissal of the original petition on September 26, 1963, became final as to petitioners Cura and Tuazon, who did not move for reconsideration. For Camacho, the period to move for reconsideration expired on November 15. The filing of an unauthorized amended petition on that date did not toll the running of the period; it was a void substitution for a proper motion for reconsideration. Thus, the September 26 dismissal was already final.
Even assuming the amended petition could be treated as a motion for reconsideration, its dismissal on November 25 became final on December 1, 1963, after the lapse of the period to challenge it. The subsequent motion for reconsideration filed on December 14 was therefore out of time. Furthermore, the denial of that motion on December 18 became final on December 22. The second motion for reconsideration, filed on December 23 without leave, was not only late but also prohibited. Consequently, by January 8, 1964, all prior orders of dismissal were long final and unalterable. The Court thus set aside its January 8 resolution and reinstated the finality of the dismissal orders.