G.R. No. 183526 - VIOLETA R. LALICAN, VS. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, AS REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT VICENTE R. AVILON. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , all the foregoing premises considered and finding that [Violeta] has failed to establish by preponderance of evidence her cause of action against the defendant, let this case be, as it is hereby DISMISSED . [20] On 14 September 2007, Violeta filed a Motion for Reconsideration [21] of the afore-mentioned RTC Decision. Insular Life opposed [22] the said motion, averring that the arguments raised therein were merely a rehash of the issues already considered and addressed by the RTC. In an Order [23] dated 8 November 2007, the RTC denied Violeta's Motion for Reconsideration, finding no cogent and compelling reason to disturb its earlier findings. Per the Registry Return Receipt on record, the 8 November 2007 Order of the RTC was received by Violeta on 3 December 2007. In the interim, on 22 November 2007, Violeta filed with the RTC a Reply [24] to the Motion for Reconsideration, wherein she reiterated the prayer in her Motion for Reconsideration for the setting aside of the Decision dated 30 August 2007. Despite already receiving on 3 December 2007, a copy of the RTC Order dated 8 November 2007, which denied her Motion for Reconsideration, Violeta still filed with the RTC, on 26 February 2008, a Reply Extended Discussion elaborating on the arguments she had previously made in her Motion for Reconsideration and Reply. On 10 April 2008, the RTC issued an Order, [25] declaring that the Decision dated 30 August 2007 in Civil Case No. 2177 had already attained finality in view of Violeta's failure to file the appropriate notice of appeal within the reglementary period. Thus, any further discussions on the issues raised by Violeta in her Reply and Reply Extended Discussion would be moot and academic. Violeta filed with the RTC, on 20 May 2008, a Notice of Appeal with Motion, [26] praying that the Order dated 10 April 2008 be set aside and that she be allowed to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals. In an Order [27] dated 3 July 2008, the RTC denied Violeta's Notice of Appeal with Motion given that the Decision dated 30 August 2007 had long since attained finality. Violeta directly elevated her case to this Court via the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari , raising the following issues for consideration: Whether or not the Decision of the court a quo dated August 30, 2007, can still be reviewed despite having allegedly attained finality and despite the fact that the mode of appeal that has been availed of by Violeta is erroneous? Whether or not the Regional Trial Court in its original jurisdiction has decided the case on a question of law not in accord with law and applicable decisions of the Supreme Court? Violeta insists that her former counsel committed an honest mistake in filing a Reply, instead of a Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision dated 30 August 2007; and in the computation of the reglementary period for appealing the said judgment. Violeta claims that her former counsel suffered from poor health, which rapidly deteriorated