GR L 19198; (December, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19198, December 29, 1962
ANTONIO D. LORIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIR OF MERCEDES LOPEZ BENDER, respondents.
FACTS
The Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya rendered a decision against petitioner Antonio D. Loria on August 1, 1959. Loria, after securing extensions, filed a motion for new trial and reconsideration on March 6, 1961, which was denied on March 14, 1961. Notice of the denial was received by Loria’s counsel on March 21, 1961. Subsequently, on March 25, 1961, Loria filed his notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a motion for extension to file his record on appeal, which was later submitted and approved by the lower court. When the record was elevated, the respondent, Mercedes Lopez Bender (substituted by her heirs), moved to dismiss the appeal in the Court of Appeals, contending it was not perfected on time. The appellate court granted the motion, dismissing the appeal on the ground that the reglementary period had lapsed, prompting Loria to file this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Loria’s appeal on the ground that it was not perfected within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion. The Supreme Court ruled that Loria’s motion for new trial and reconsideration was not pro forma; therefore, its filing effectively suspended the running of the period to appeal. A pro forma motion is one that does not point out specifically the findings or conclusions in the judgment which are not supported by evidence or which are contrary to law, making it insufficient to suspend the period. In contrast, Loria’s motion meticulously specified newly discovered evidence, including a decision from the Department of Agriculture affirming his sales application, correspondence from Bender, affidavits, and details regarding land acquisition and irrigation improvements. It also substantively argued for reconsideration by challenging the lower court’s legal conclusions, asserting his recognized rights by the Bureau of Lands and contesting the award of damages.
The legal logic is clear: a substantive motion for new trial or reconsideration tolls the reglementary period for appeal under the Rules of Court. Since Loria’s motion was substantively grounded on newly discovered evidence and detailed legal arguments, it was not merely perfunctory. Consequently, the period to appeal commenced only upon his receipt of the notice denying said motion on March 21, 1961. His filing of the notice of appeal and appeal bond on March 25, 1961, was therefore well within the fresh period granted by law. The Court of Appeals’ dismissal resolution constituted a grave abuse of discretion for failing to recognize the suspensive effect of a valid motion, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court annulled the appellate court’s resolutions and directed it to give due course to Loria’s appeal.