G.R. No. L-7937 May 18, 1955
JUANITA RONQUILLO, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL AMPARO, ETC., y OSTROS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juanita Ronquillo filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila to elevate the record on appeal to the Court of Appeals. In Civil Case No. 18215, where Ronquillo was the plaintiff, the respondent Judge rendered a decision absolving the defendants. Ronquillo was notified of this decision on March 27, 1954. On April 14, 1954, she filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial, which was denied on May 3, 1954, with notice of denial served on May 8, 1954. On May 12, 1954, she filed a notice of appeal and requested an extension to file the appeal bond and record on appeal. She filed the appeal bond on May 14, 1954. On May 18, 1954, she filed a second motion for reconsideration and new trial, alleging that certain mortgaged properties had been attached and sold by the Sheriff on March 15, 1954, and that articles used in her business were likewise sold on the same date, with the proceeds allegedly in the defendants’ possession. The respondent Judge denied this second motion and subsequently granted the defendants’ motion to declare the decision final and to dismiss the appeal, as the record on appeal was filed only on June 3, 1954, which was beyond the computed period.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted correctly in denying the second motion for new trial and in declaring the decision final and the appeal dismissed for being filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the respondent Judge correctly denied the second motion for new trial. The grounds alleged in the second motion (events of March 15, 1954) existed and were available before the first motion for new trial was filed on April 14, 1954. Under Section 4, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, grounds for a new trial that could have been raised in a motion are deemed waived if not alleged therein. A second motion for new trial is permitted only if based on a ground not existing when the first motion was made. The purpose of the rule is to prevent undue delay in the disposition of cases. The filing of the second motion did not suspend the period to appeal. Computing the period from notice of judgment (March 28, 1954) to the filing of the first motion (April 14, 1954) consumed 18 days. After notice of the denial on May 8, 1954, the remaining 12 days of the original 30-day period to appeal ended on May 20, 1954. With the granted extension of 10 days, the deadline to file the record on appeal was May 30, 1954. Since it was filed only on June 3, 1954, the respondent Judge correctly declared the decision final and dismissed the appeal.