G.R. No. 167403 - MAKATI INSURANCE CO., INC., VS. HON. WILFREDO D. REYES, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 36, RUBILLS INTERNATIONAL, INC., TONG WOON SHIPPING PTE LTD, AND ASIAN TERMINALS, INC.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the case at bar is dismissed without prejudice. No costs. [8] On 29 November 2001, petitioner received the Order dated 19 November 2001 dismissing its case. On 4 December 2001, petitioner filed its Verified Motion for Reconsideration [9] alleging that sickness prevented its counsel from attending the pre-trial conference. On 3 July 2002, petitioner received Judge Reyes's Order dated 17 June 2002 denying its Verified Motion for Reconsideration. [10] According to the 17 June 2002 RTC Order: After a careful review of the grounds relied upon by [herein petitioner]'s counsel in his verified motion for reconsideration dated December 1, 2001, the Court has no other recourse but to deny the same as the grounds of said motion for reconsideration are not impressive so as to convince the Court to reverse its Order of November 19, 2001, WHEREFORE, [petitioner]'s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. [11] Petitioner received notice of the afore-mentioned Order on 3 July 2002. On 17 July 2002, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, [12] which was promptly opposed by private respondents for having been filed out of time. [13] Petitioner countered that its failure to file the Notice of Appeal on time was due to its counsel's inadvertence in computing the appeal period. The inadvertence was allegedly due to the fact that its Verified Motion for Reconsideration was filed by registered mail, and the messenger who mailed it failed to attach to the records of the case the postal receipt showing the date the said motion was mailed. [14] Petitioner's counsel, therefore, was unable to determine correctly when petitioner's period to appeal was interrupted by the filing of its Verified Motion for Reconsideration and how many more days were left in said period when its Motion was denied. On 23 September 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Notice of Appeal, [15] alleging it had no intention to delay the resolution of the case; it had a meritorious case; and its Notice of Appeal should be granted pursuant to the dictum that "courts should not place undue importance on technicalities, when by so doing, substantial justice is sacrificed." On 2 October 2002, Judge Reyes issued his Order [16] dismissing petitioner's Notice of Appeal for being filed three days beyond the 15-day reglementary period. In so ruling, Judge Reyes held that pursuant to Section 3, Rule 41 vis-à-vis Section 2, Rule 22 of the Revised Rules of Court, the period to appeal is interrupted by a timely motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed its Verified Motion for Reconsideration five days after receiving the Order dismissing the case without prejudice. Excluding the day the said motion was filed, petitioner had only 11 days left to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner received the Order of 17 June 2002 denying its Verified Motion for Reconsideration on 3 July 2002. Accordingly, it had only until 14 July 2002 to file a Notice of Appeal. Petitioner, however, filed its Notice of Appeal on 17 Jul