GR L 1350; (March, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1350; March 26, 1949
TOMAS MEDRAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, VALENTINA ZAMORA, and BONIFACIO DIONES, respondents.
FACTS
The Court of First Instance of Mindoro rendered a judgment on November 29, 1945, awarding ownership and possession of a land to petitioner Tomas Medran and ordering respondent Bonifacio Diones to vacate and pay damages. Respondents Diones and Zamora were notified of the judgment on January 10, 1946, and filed a notice of appeal on January 11, 1946, but failed to submit the required appeal bond on time. On February 19, 1946, the trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of bond and ordered execution of the judgment. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration on March 18, 1946, along with a belated appeal bond, citing excusable neglect. This motion was denied on May 10, 1946. Respondents filed a second and later a third motion for reconsideration on identical grounds. The third motion was granted by a different judge on August 7, 1946, reinstating the appeal. The Court of Appeals upheld this reinstatement. Medran filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing the trial court’s judgment had become final and unappealable.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in upholding the reinstatement of the appeal despite the finality of the order dismissing the appeal for failure to file the bond on time.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The order of the trial court dated February 19, 1946, dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appeal bond, was valid. The first motion for reconsideration (treated as a petition for relief under Rule 38) was denied on May 10, 1946, and that denial became final when respondents failed to appeal it within thirty days. The subsequent second and third motions for reconsideration, based on identical grounds, did not suspend the period to appeal and were improper attempts to secure a different ruling from another judge. The third motion, filed on July 29, 1946, was also filed beyond the sixty-day period for a petition for relief under Rule 38. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment of November 29, 1945, had become final and executory. The Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and should have dismissed it. The writ was issued, the Court of Appeals’ resolution was set aside, and the record was ordered returned to the trial court for execution of its final judgment.
AI Generated by Armztrong.