GR 35514; (November, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35514 November 13, 1981
RENE NIETO, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES and BALBINITA T. LACSON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rene Nieto was the administrator of the intestate estate of his father. Respondent Balbinita Lacson filed a claim against the estate. Nieto filed a one-paragraph answer denying the claim. Lacson filed a motion to have this answer deemed an admission of her claim under the rules. Nieto’s counsel filed a motion for postponement due to illness, which the respondent judge denied. The judge then granted Lacson’s motion, deemed the answer an admission, and allowed ex-parte presentation of evidence. An order dated April 3, 1972, approved Lacson’s claim. Nieto filed a motion for reconsideration on April 8, 1972, which incorporated by reference the arguments from an earlier, unrelated motion filed on April 1. The court denied this motion. Nieto later filed a notice of appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed on April 8, 1972, was pro forma, thereby failing to interrupt the period to appeal and rendering the April 3 order final and executory.
RULING
Yes, the motion was pro forma. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal. The legal logic centers on strict compliance with procedural rules governing motions for reconsideration. Under the applicable rules, a motion for reconsideration must specify the findings or conclusions in the judgment or order which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law. A motion that fails to do this is considered pro forma and does not toll the running of the period to appeal. In this case, Nieto’s April 8 motion merely incorporated by reference the contents of his April 1 motion, which was directed at a different order (dated March 11) and was filed before the issuance of the April 3 order being challenged. Consequently, the April 8 motion did not point out with specificity the alleged errors in the April 3 order itself. Since it was pro forma, the period to appeal was not interrupted. The 30-day appeal period from Nieto’s receipt of the April 3 order lapsed on May 9, 1972. His notice of appeal filed on July 7, 1972, was therefore filed out of time, making the April 3 order final and executory. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice and must be faithfully observed.