Guerra Vs CFI of Lanao Del Sur

Guerra vs CFI of Lanao del Sur
L-28310
Guerra Enterprises Co vs CFI Lanao del Sur and Pablo Luna
FACTS:
* Guerra Enterprises registered a complaint for damages and preliminary injunction against
Pablo Luna in the CFI Lanao. CFI ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Copy of the order was
received by counsel on Feb 21, 1966.
* Guerra filed Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Court by order of
Oct 20, 1966.
* Nov 21, 1966 Guerra in a motion, stated that he was appealing to the CA and prayed that he
be given 30 days (up to Dec 31, 1966) to perfect his appeal.
* Dec 2, 1966 Court granted an extension of 15 days from receipt of this order to file an
appeal bond and record of appeal. Copy was received by appellant on Dec 7, 1966.
* Formal notice of appeal filed on Nov 23, 1966 (even before extension was granted).
* Dec 7 appeal bond of P120 was filed with Clerk of Court.
* Dec 10 the record of appeal was submitted, copies were sent to defendant.
* Upon objection of defendant (Luna), court denied the approval of the record of appeal and
dismissed the appeal by order of Apr 29, 1967 on the following grounds:
1. The Urgent M4R was a pro forma motion that did not interrupt the 30-day appeal period
2. The record of appeal submitted did not show on its face when counsel for appellant received
copy of the order of Jan 21, 1966 dismissing the case, nor the date when counsel received copy
of the order dated Oct 20, 1966 denying the M4R
ISSUE:
HELD:
We find the petition meritorious. Contrary to finding of court that M4R was pro forma (since it
contained arguments that are substantially the same as those in the memorandum submitted by
appellant Dec 29, 1966), our scanning of the M4R convinces us that the same differs
substantially from the memorandum. The M4R attacked the lower courts application of our
ruling in Arroyo v Granada, which is not found in the memorandum of Dec 29.
Among the ends to which a motion for recon is addressed, one is precisely to convince the court
that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to the law or the evidence; and in doing so,
the movant has to dwell of necessity upon the issues passed upon by the court.
If a motion for recon may not discuss these issues, the consequence would be that after a
decision is rendered, the losing party would be confined to filing only motions for reopening and
new trial.
It must also be remembered that the disallowance of pro forma motions for recon or new trial is
mainly predicated upon their being resorted to solely to gain time and delay proceedings. In the
case at bar, filing of the Urgent motion to reconsider the order of dismissal barely 12 days after
its receipt strongly argues against its use as mere delaying tactic.
On second ground: (record of appeal failed to specify date when orders were received)
It is enough to observe that since the record of appeal was still within the control of the
respondent court, all that was needed was to order appellant to make requisite amendments,
and not to bar the appeal.
It is not amiss to point out that the date when appellants counsel received copy of the order to
dismiss can be gleaned from appellants notice of appeal dated Nov 21, 1966: counsel has just
received copy of the order dated Oct 20, 1966, denying the motion for reconsideration.
Finally, Lunas objection to the verification of the petition on the ground that the same is done
by counsel to the best of my knowledge, information and belief is unmeritorious since such a
verification by attorney is adequate with Rule 7 Sec 6 (it being presumed that facts by him
alleged are true to his knowledge in view of the sanctions provided in Sec 5 of the Rule.
We hold that CFI gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal of petitioner. Remanded
for further proceedings.
Notes:
pro forma:
A M4R on the ground that the decision is completely against the evidence and the law, which
does not point out the testimonial or documentary evidence of the provisions of law alleged to
be contrary to the findings and pronouncements made in the judgment pro forma, merely to
delay proceedings, and shall not interrupt the period of time for perfection of appeal.
Not pro forma:

Where the motion for reconsideration was based on a claim that the finding of the trial court as
to the authenticity of the disputed signature was not justified by the evidence submitted, which
is the testimony of the witness denying such authenticity, the motion points out why the finding
of the court is not justified by evidence. This motion suspends the period for perfecting an
appeal.

Guerra Vs CFI of Lanao Del Sur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guerra Vs CFI of Lanao Del Sur

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guerra Vs CFI of Lanao Del Sur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guerra vs CFI of Lanao del Sur

Not pro forma:

You might also like