G.R. No. 140974 - RAMON ORO, VS. JUDGE GERARDO D. DIAZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 68, DUMANGAS, ILOILO; AND DONATO MANEJERO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiff is hereby DISAPPROVED for the same was filed out of time." [6] Hence, this Petition. [7] The Issues In his Memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues for the consideration of this Court: "I. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the notice of appeal. "II. Whether the private respondent is liable for damages as claimed by the petitioner before the lower court." [8] The Court's Ruling The Petition has no merit. First Issue: No Grave Abuse of Discretion For the disapproval of his Notice of Appeal, petitioner ascribes grave abuse of discretion to public respondent. He likewise questions the finding of the trial court that his Motion for Reconsideration, being pro forma, did not interrupt the running of the period within which to file an appeal. He argues that because it was the appellate court which had jurisdiction to disapprove the Notice of Appeal for having been filed late, public respondent had no authority to do so. At the outset, the Court emphasizes that the power of the trial court to disallow or disapprove a notice of appeal for being filed out of time is expressly recognized. Section 13, Rule 41 of Rules of Court, explicitly provides: "Sec. 13. Dismissal of appeal. - Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may motu proprio, or on motion, dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of time ." (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner also contends that respondent judge should not have deemed the Motion for Reconsideration as pro forma, simply because it was a mere rehash of the earlier arguments in the Complaint. The former believes that a contrary finding would have tolled the running of the 15-day prescriptive period, and so his Notice of Appeal would not have been considered late. Indeed, although a motion for reconsideration merely reiterates issues already passed upon by the court, that by itself does not make it pro forma . What is essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules. [9] However, even if petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is not considered pro forma - in which case the running of the 15-day reglementary period is effectively interrupted -- still, the trial court was correct in ruling that the Notice of Appeal had been filed out of time . A review of the records of the case shows that the RTC Order dismissing the Complaint was received by petitioner on June 2, 1999. On that date, the 15-day prescriptive period within which to file an appeal began to run. Instead of preparing an appeal, petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration on June 14, 1999. His filing of the Motion interrupted the reglementary period to appeal. By that time, however, 12 days had already lapsed; thus, from his receipt of the Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration, he had only three (3) days left within which to file a notice of appeal. On Au