LLantero
Petition for certiorari
Facts
 JM Tuason Corporation instituted an action for
recovery of possession against petitioner – CFI
 TC: ordered petitioner
o to remove his house and other constructions
o to surrender possession
o to pay P20.00 a month from April 23, 1957 until
possession is restored;
o to pay the costs
 Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals -affirmed
 Petitioner received a copy of the same on May 30,
1967.
 MR (reg mail) - erroneously placed as docket number
 judgment against petitioner became final,
 an entry of judgment was made
 the records of the case were remanded to the TC
 petitioner moved to set aside the entry of judgment
o ground: except for the mistake in docket
number, reconsideration was timely filed so
that the Decision had not yet become final
o denied
SC: We find the Petition groundless.
 Petitioner's Motion, although seasonably presented
from the foregoing standpoint, bore an erroneous
docket number
 it could not be attached to the expediente of the
correct case -> the Motion was legally inexistent.
 CA committed no error in remanding the case to the
Court of origin for execution of the judgment.
 counsel's oversight - not excusable
 Petitioner's arguments in his Motion for
Reconsideration were a mere reiteration of his
evidence presented to the trial Court. Clearly then, the
Motion for Reconsideration, even if correctly
numbered, was pro forma, filed to gain time, and
could not toll the running of the period of appeal.
 All the foregoing considered, the entry of judgment
made by respondent Appellate Court must be upheld.
 WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby dismissed. Costs
against petitioner.
 PCIB v Ortiz
Special Civil Action for Certiorari
 depositors, Rogelio Maraviles- case - recovery of
damages resulting from the dishonor of two (2) of his
check -> PCIB
 Ledesma, Saludo & Associates appeared for PCIB
o lawyers failed to appear at the presentation of
evidence of PCIB
 Trial Court dictated an Order: for Reso
o judgment for the plaintiff
 PCIB's lawyers MR; explanation: Atty. Mangohig
suddenly resigned from the law firm; did no submit
report
 Mariveles opposed
 MR denied
 PCIB – filed notice of appeal and 2nd MR
 TC – denied 2nd MR
SC: notices served on the latter had been reaching the
former and that, in any event, the PCIB lawyers had never
protested such service on them "thru COMMEX."
 Protest: particular instance of service of notice of
the judgment on COMMEX
 PCIB, service was accepted by its lawyers "thru
COMMEX” for hearings
 PCIB's attorney's had acquiesced to and impliedly
adopted a different address
TC Correct: PCIB "PBIC- no good and valid defenses which
might change or alter the judgment of this Court if it were to
set (it) aside and ** (reopen the case)”
PCIB's unverified answer
 made up mostly of denials for lack of knowledge" 21
and an averment of "special and affirmative defenses"
 no other defense has been asserted by PCIB, whether
in an affidavit of merit attached to its two (2) motions
for reconsideration or otherwise
 FAMEN – ground(M new Trial) - proved in the manner
provided for proof of motions
o "affidavits or depositions" unless the court
should direct that "the matter be heard wholly
or partly on oral testimony or depositions
o accompanied by two (2) affidavits:
 1. facts and circumstances alleged to
constitute – FAMEN
 2. affidavit of merits, setting forth the
particular facts claimed to constitute the
movant's meritorious COA/defense
o Otherwise- pro forma; not interrupt period
o Ground: excessive Damages- Affid not required
 proper motion for new trial interrupts the running of
the period of appeal
o time remaining to appeal only
o run again after notice
Rep v Asuncion (petition for review)
Facts:
 Asuncion and the Heirs of Felipe F. Asuncion
o applied for the registration of the titles
 Petitioner(rep by OSG)- opposed: inalienable forest
lands
 App's motion to admit an amended application –
granted
 compromise agreement – app and other opp
 TC – approved compromise; dismissed 2 applications
o Decision: ordered registration of 5 parcels
 OSG - MR 5 days after receipt – denied
 TC – “OSG in effect seeking new trial; mr – pro forma
– lacked affid of merit req S2R37”
 Notice of Appeal dismissed – filed out of time
o 7 days after receipt of denial
 Cert – CA – annulment of orders – dismissed
o CA- considered MR – as MNewTrial
o Pro forma – did not toll running
o MR denied
SC: motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for
new trial if based on a ground for new trial:
1. FAMEN
2. Newly discovered evid
CAB - Solicitor General's motion for reconsideration did not
aver grounds for new trial.
 Not based on 1 or 2
 two main arguments raised by the Solicitor General
1. deprived petitioner of its right to present
evidence
2. tainted with serious errors of law and fact
SC: Mere reiteration of issues already passed upon by the
court does not automatically make a motion for
reconsideration pro forma. What is essential is compliance
with the requisites of the Rules.
OSG-alleged that the trial court had erred in considering the
1953 decision of CFI as res judicata. MR was not pro forma.
SG filed his notice of appeal on March 20, 2002 or seven days
after he received the denial of the motion-> within the "fresh
period" of 15 days to file the notice of appeal.
we find now that the Solicitor General improperly appeals
before this Court the trial court's decision in LRC Case No.
3681-M. We note that he had already appealed said
decision, by way of an ordinary appeal, when he filed the
notice of appeal with the trial court.34 In Marikina Valley
Dev't. Corp. v. Hon. Flojo, it should be pointed out, this Court
directed the trial court to give due course to the notice of
appeal.35