ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138897. September 6, 1999]

LEON CHIQUITO vs. HON. VALENTIN NAGAYNAY, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated SEPT 6 1999.

G.R. No. 138897 (Leon Chiquito vs. Hon. Valentin Nagaynay in his capacity as Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator in Iloilo, Nenita V. Lacson and Antonio V. Lacson.)

On July 5, 1999, the Court issued a Resolution finding no reversible error with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that petitioner's appeal to the DARAB was filed out of time.

Petitioner now files this motion for reconsideration alleging that the DARAB rules of procedure to be applied in his case should be the old DARAB rules (and not the DARAB New Rules of Procedure) where it does not categorically provide that upon the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the adjudicator, the movant shall have the right to perfect his appeal during the remainder of the period to appeal.1 [See Rollo, p. 20.] He insists that he has a fresh period of 15 days from the receipt of the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration within which to appeal to the DARAB.

Petitioner's allegation is bereft of merit.

We reiterate the Court's pronouncement which had all the time been explicit and which respondent court did not err in applying:

x x x. "After a mature deliberation, where the members of the Court delved once more into the methods of computation discussed in the cases mentioned by counsel for respondent, the Court resolved not to follow the ruling in either of them and to adhere strictly to the rule of computation embodied in Rule 28 of our rules. The idea that prevailed is that since petitioner Lloren filed his motion for reconsideration on the 15 th day of the period within which he may perfect his appeal, that day should be excluded for reconsideration ha had still 1 day within which to perfect his appeal. x x x." 2 [BPI Data Systems Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (citing Mara, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 28 SCRA 1075 [1969]), 254 SCRA 59 (1996).]

Considering that petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration on the last day of the reglementary period, he had only one day left to file his appeal to the DARAB, which he failed to do. Thus, petitioner's appeal to the Board was clearly filed out of time.

Petitioner further prayed that the denial of this petition be held in abeyance considering that petitioner's Motion for New Trial dated April 27, 1999, filed with the Court of Appeals, was allegedly acted upon by the CA as the respondents were asked to comment on said motion. Such assertion deserves scant consideration from this Court. Aside from the fact that no proof was presented to substantiate such assertion, the petition filed with this Court must just the same be dismissed for prematurity of cause of action.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration with finality for lack of merit. DAVIDE, JR., C.J. and chairman is on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE