G.R. No. L-14152; May 30, 1961
JUSTITA MANUEL, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FELIXBERTA MANUEL, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of two parcels of land. After a scheduled hearing was postponed, the case was set for hearing on September 5, 1957. Neither the parties nor their counsel appeared on that date. Consequently, the trial court issued an order dismissing both the complaint and the defendants’ counterclaim. The plaintiffs filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, attributing their non-appearance to excusable negligence, as a letter from counsel was allegedly not received, and claiming they had “good grounds” for their action, supported by an affidavit. This motion was denied by the court.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for reconsideration, seeking to have the dismissal order amended to include “without prejudice.” They elaborated on the grounds of excusable negligence and presented their substantive claim, a deed of sale. The defendants opposed, arguing the motion was pro forma and violated the omnibus motion rule. The trial court, however, granted the second motion and amended its original order to state the dismissal was “without prejudice.” The defendants appealed, contending the court had lost jurisdiction as the judgment had become final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant the plaintiffs’ second motion for reconsideration and amend its order of dismissal to “without prejudice.”

RULING

Yes, the trial court retained jurisdiction. The legal logic centers on the timeliness of the motions and the court’s inherent power to amend its orders to serve justice. The original dismissal order was received on September 27, 1957. The first motion for reconsideration, filed on September 30, 1957, suspended the running of the 30-day period for the judgment to become final. Only two days of that period had elapsed when the first motion was denied on December 6, 1957. The second motion was filed on December 18, 1957, which was well within the remaining 28 days of the reglementary period.
Although the resolution of this second motion extended beyond the 30-day period, its pendency kept the case within the court’s jurisdiction. A motion filed within the reglementary period, if not fatally defective, tolls the period for finality. The Court emphasized the trial court’s inherent power under the Rules to amend its processes and orders to conform to law and justice. The amendment to “without prejudice” was a proper exercise of this discretion, especially since both the complaint and counterclaim were dismissed for non-appearance, and no adjudication on the merits had occurred. The ruling prioritizes substantive justice over technicalities, allowing a case to be reopened for a determination on the merits when the dismissal was due to procedural oversight and the motion was filed before finality. The orders of the lower court were affirmed.