GR L 13010; (December, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13010, December 28, 1959
Juanito N. Ferrer, petitioner-appellee, vs. Alfonso Tabora, in his capacity as City Mayor of Baguio City, et al., respondents-appellants.
FACTS
Petitioner Juanito Ferrer held the position of Assistant Civil Engineer of Baguio City, appointed in 1954. In June 1956, he was additionally authorized to act as a representative of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA). While Ferrer was abroad, the City Council of Baguio passed Resolution No. 186 on June 28, 1956, abolishing his position, under the impression it would be absorbed by NAWASA by July 1, 1956. Subsequently, Resolution No. 188, passed on July 5, 1956, excluded the position from the city’s annual budget. On October 1, 1956, Ferrer filed a petition for “Mandamus with Damages” in the Court of First Instance of Baguio, seeking restoration to his position. The lower court rendered judgment on August 26, 1957, declaring Resolution No. 188 illegal, ordering Ferrer’s restoration to his position as of July 1, 1956, and awarding attorney’s fees and costs against the respondents. The respondents appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period prescribed by the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Notice of the lower court’s decision was received by appellants on August 27, 1957. They filed a motion for reconsideration on September 11, 1957, which was fifteen days after receipt of notice. However, this motion did not suspend the running of the period for appeal because it failed to comply with Section 2, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. The motion did not point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment alleged to be unsupported by evidence or contrary to law, with express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or provisions of law involved. Since the motion was pro forma, the period to appeal continued to run. The notice of appeal was filed only on September 23, 1957, which was twenty-seven days after notice of judgment, beyond the fifteen-day period fixed for mandamus proceedings by Section 17 of Rule 41. Consequently, the trial court’s decision had become final and unappealable, and the Supreme Court acquired no jurisdiction to review it. The appeal was dismissed with costs against appellants.