G.R. No. 46381 ; March 20, 1939
MANUEL S. CONCEPCION, petitioner, vs. JOSE O. VERA and WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel S. Concepcion was the defendant in a forcible entry case filed by respondent West Coast Life Insurance Co. After the plaintiff presented its evidence, the defendant moved for dismissal, which was denied. The plaintiff then moved to bar the defendant from presenting evidence, which was initially denied. After the defendant began presenting evidence (one witness testified), the plaintiff moved for reconsideration. The court granted the motion and issued an order barring the defendant from presenting further evidence. The defendant did not appeal this order via certiorari. The court then rendered a decision against the defendant. The defendant filed a “Motion for Rehearing,” which the court denied, declaring its judgment final and executory on the ground that the motion was not a proper motion for new trial and thus did not suspend the appeal period. The defendant then filed an exception and notice of appeal, which the court refused to admit.

ISSUE

Whether the “Motion for Rehearing” filed by the petitioner is equivalent to a motion for new trial under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the filing of which suspends the thirty-day period for perfecting an appeal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court treated the petition as one for mandamus. It ruled that the motion for rehearing, which alleged that the order barring the defendant from presenting evidence was contrary to law, was based on a ground provided for in Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a new trial. Consequently, its filing suspended the thirty-day appeal period. The respondent judge therefore erred in declaring the judgment final and executory and in refusing to admit the petitioner’s appeal. The Court ordered the respondent judge to grant the petitioner the reglementary period to file his bill of exceptions.

AI Generated by Armztrong.