GR L 46100; (May, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-46100. May 26, 1939.
ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL, petitioner, vs. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alfredo Hidalgo Rizal received notice of an adverse judgment from the Court of First Instance of Manila on January 14, 1935. Within the 30-day period to file a motion for new trial, he filed a motion for reconsideration (treated as a motion for new trial) on January 23, 1935, which was denied on February 6, 1935. He filed a second motion for new trial on February 8, 1935, which was denied on February 16, 1935. On February 21, 1935, he filed his exception and notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as having been filed out of time. Petitioner filed this certiorari petition seeking reinstatement of his appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s notice of appeal filed on February 21, 1935, was filed within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The filing of the first motion for reconsideration (motion for new trial) suspended the running of the appeal period, leaving 21 days remaining from the notice of its denial on February 6, 1935. The second motion for new trial, being based on the same grounds, did not suspend the period. However, the notice of appeal filed on February 21, 1935, was still within the remaining 21-day period. The Court held that a notice of appeal filed within the period remaining for filing another motion for new trial is timely, even if more than five days have elapsed from the denial of a prior motion, provided it is within the total 30-day period for filing such motions (excluding the time taken by the court to decide them). The appealed decision was reversed and the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals.
AI Generated by Armztrong.