GR 30340; (June, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30340 June 30, 1976
CONSUELO AMUNATEGUE VDA. DE GENTUGAO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE R. QUERUBIN and HEIRS OF SANCHO GENTUGAO, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from the settlement of the intestate estate of Sancho Gentugao, with petitioner Consuelo Amunategue Vda. de Gentugao acting as the judicial administratrix. She submitted an amended final statement of accounts covering specific periods. The private respondents, heirs of the decedent, filed objections to certain expenditures in the account, claiming they were not proper administration expenses. The respondent judge issued an order on June 10, 1966, granting the heirs’ motion and ordering the administratrix to pay them the sum of P22,356 within fifteen days. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of this order. The trial court, however, denied this motion as pro-forma and subsequently refused to give due course to her appeal, ruling that the judgment had become final and executory since the pro-forma motion did not suspend the appeal period. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to allow her appeal.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was merely pro-forma, thereby failing to suspend the period for appeal and rendering the trial court’s order final and executory.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The Court meticulously examined the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. It found that the motion merely reiterated the same arguments previously raised and resolved by the trial court in its earlier orders. The motion did not point out any specific errors in the June 10, 1966 order nor present any new substantial matter that had not already been considered. A motion for reconsideration that does not specify the findings or conclusions in the judgment claimed to be contrary to law or the evidence, and fails to state the basis for its arguments, is considered pro-forma. Such a motion does not toll the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. Consequently, the petitioner’s failure to file a valid motion for reconsideration meant the appeal period was not interrupted. The trial court’s order became final and could no longer be appealed. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is statutory and must be exercised in accordance with prescribed procedure; it is not an inherent right. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the mandamus petition.