G.R. No. L-76668 January 28, 1988
DULOS REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CICERO C. JURADO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dulos Realty filed a complaint in 1976 for declaration of an easement of right of way and legal redemption. After pre-trial, trial on the merits commenced in 1981 with the presentation of its first witness, Juan Dulos. The direct examination was suspended and, after several resettings, the case was eventually ordered dismissed by the trial court on April 4, 1984, for failure to prosecute. Petitioner alleged it received the dismissal order only on November 22, 1985, and filed a motion for reconsideration by registered mail on December 6, 1985.
The trial court denied the motion, finding it was filed out of time. It held the motion was filed on December 9, 1985, based on a court-stamp receipt on the motion showing that date. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending the motion was timely mailed on December 6, 1985, as shown by a postal registry receipt, and that the court stamp was misread due to an inverted impression. The CA denied the petition, sustaining the trial court’s finding.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court’s finding that the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time on December 9, 1985, and not on December 6, 1985.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The ruling is anchored on procedural principles and the nature of appellate review. First, the Court emphasized that the determination of the date of filing is a factual finding by the lower courts. As a rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and not reviewable by the Supreme Court, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no such abuse here, defined as a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Second, the Court noted the registry receipt or mailing envelope bearing the post office stamp was not presented in the trial court when it resolved the timeliness issue. Evidence, such as a postmaster’s certification, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Issues and evidence not presented below are barred by the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and the rules of fair play.
Finally, the Court considered the protracted delay in the prosecution of the case, which had been pending for nine years without petitioner finishing its first witness and had suffered prior dismissals for failure to prosecute. This context supported the lower courts’ strict application of procedural rules to prevent further delay. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s resolutions.