ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 138731.February 21, 2001]

TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL VDA. DE BIASCAN vs. HON. REYES, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 21 2001.

G.R. No. 138731(Testate Estate of Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan vs. The Honorable Vetino E. Reyes, et al.)

Before the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decisionof this Court, dated December 11, 2000, which dismissed the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 18, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 44306.

The Motion raises the following grounds for the reconsideration of the December 11,2000 Decision:

I

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE DECLARATION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT THAT THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) OF MANILA BRANCH 4 DATED APRIL 2, 1981 IN SP PROC. NO. 98037 BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY IS CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE.

II

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE DECLARATION THAT RTC OF MANILA BRANCH 4 CORRECTLY DISMISSED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RECORD ON APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER IN SP. PROC. NO. 98037 IS CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE.

With respect to the first issue, movant contends that if no question was raised as to the issue of timeliness of a motion for reconsideration, as in the instant case, then the defect is waived or becomes non-existent.

We have already passed upon this issue in our Decision dated December 11, 2000. We note that the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 6, 1981 submitted by petitioner before the lower court was filed a full fifty-eight (58) days after receipt of the order sought to be reconsidered. By this time, the order sought to be reconsidered had already become final and executory as the period to appeal the same had already lapsed. Being final and executory, the trial court can no longer alter, modify or reverse the questioned order. ¹ GSIS vs. Gines, 219 SCRA 724; Estoesta, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 203; Agricultural and Industrial Marketing, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 49.It is of no moment that the opposing party failed to object to the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration as the trial could not even validly entertain a motion for reconsideration filed after the lapse of the period for taking an appeal. ² Destileria Limtuaco & Co, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 91.

With respect to the second issue, movant contends that the Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal filed by petitioner should be allowed notwithstanding the late filing thereof as there are exceptions which justify the approval of a notice of appeal filed beyond the reglementary period. In support, movant invokes jurisprudential precepts allowing appeals filed beyond the reglementary periods provided by the Rules of Court.

It is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that the timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional caveat that not even this Court can trifle with. It is only the existence of a highly exceptional circumstance that can allow the Court to relax the rule. ³ Batara vs. court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 237.

Beyond saying that the Orders sought to be appealed will give due recognition to the constitutional protection given to marriage, movant has not cited any issue of transcendental importance which would justify a relaxation of the rules on appeal. The circumstances reflected in this case do not come close to the exceptional circumstances needed to justify a turnabout from the otherwise strictly followed general rule.

Moreover, it has not been shown that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was excusable. In the case at bench, petitioner-movant has not cited any reason why there was delay in the filing of the same on September 20, 1996 or almost a month after the expiration of the period to appeal on August 22, 1996. We surmise that there was no reason for the delay other that the negligence of petitioner's counsel as, in fact, counsel for petitioner even attempted to pass its Notice of Appeal as having been filed on time by dating the same as August 22, 1996. As can be readily seen on the face of the Notice of Appeal however, the same was received by the trial court only on September 20, 1996, long after the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal.

WHEREFORE, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE