G.R. No. L-13113; August 13, 1959
Blas Elnar, petitioner, vs. Hon. Macario P. Santos, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, and Roman Valencia, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Blas Elnar, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental to be declared the owner of Lot No. 1182. The trial court rendered a decision on February 18, 1957, dismissing Elnar’s complaint and ordering him to pay the defendants P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs. Notice of this decision was served on Elnar’s counsel on March 28, 1957. On April 25, 1957, Elnar filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. The trial court denied this motion on May 9, 1957, ruling it was merely pro forma and did not suspend the period to appeal, thereby declaring its decision final and executory. Elnar filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to give due course to his appeal, but the Court of Appeals denied the petition on September 26, 1957. Elnar then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. An additional factual point raised was that Elnar had satisfied the judgment for attorney’s fees under a writ of execution on June 14, 1957.

ISSUE

Whether the motion for reconsideration and/or new trial filed by petitioner was merely pro forma and therefore did not suspend the period to perfect an appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the motion for reconsideration was not pro forma and should have suspended the period to appeal. The motion specified grounds under Rule 37, including that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision and that the decision was contrary to law. It contained specific assignments of error, pointing out conclusions of the trial court on questions of fact (e.g., conclusions regarding the title of Andres Las Piñas and Tan King Siong, and possession of the land) and questions of law (e.g., the application of laches and the award of attorney’s fees). While the motion did not make express reference to testimonial or documentary evidence for the factual errors, the Court, applying a liberal construction of the rules to promote justice, found it to be in substantial compliance. The Court cited commentary by former Chief Justice Moran indicating that a motion which points out why a finding is not justified by the evidence is not pro forma. Furthermore, the Court held that Elnar’s payment of the attorney’s fees under a writ of execution did not constitute an abandonment of his appeal from the main dismissal of his action for ownership. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the trial court was ordered to give due course to Elnar’s appeal.