G.R. No. 137122 - MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC., VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, BERNARDO, DOMINADOR, HERMOGENA LUCIA, AND MARIA GATCHALIAN, AND THE HEIRS OF GREGORIO GATCHALIAN: ROLANDO, CONRADO AND ARTURO, ALL SURNAMED GATCHALIAN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court hereby dismisses the complaint of the plaintiff for lack of merit and having been barred by the statute of limitations and by laches. The counterclaim of the defendants are likewise dismissed for lack of evidence." [1] Respondents received a copy of the decision on 04 July 1983. On 19 July 1983, the last day of the prescribed fifteen-day period for appeal, private respondents filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration. The motion was denied by the trial court in its order of 03 October 1989. A copy of the order was received by respondents on 28 November 1989. On 07 December 1989, respondents filed a notice of appeal and, on 11 December 1989, the trial court gave due course to the appeal and directed the transmittal of the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. The records of the case, however, were not transmitted to the appellate court due to missing transcript of stenographic notes. On 23 April 1996, the trial court required the parties to appear in conference. Almost a year had lapsed but the missing stenographic notes were still not submitted to the trial court. On 28 February 1997, respondents filed a motion for new trial for the retaking and presentation of testimonial and documentary evidence on the ground that the reconstitution of the missing stenographic notes was no longer possible considering that the court stenographers who had transcribed the testimony of witnesses by then since retired from the service, their whereabouts unknown. On 22 April 1997, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and an opposition to the motion for new trial filed by respondents contending that the appeal was filed out of time and that the remedy for new trial could not be availed of since it was filed long after the reglementary period to appeal had lapsed. The trial court, in its order of 16 July 1997 resolved the incidents in this wise; thus: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for New Trial prayed for by the plaintiffs being based on meritorious grounds is hereby GRANTED. "Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by defendant Manila Memorial Park is hereby DENIED for being moot and academic and barred by laches. "Further, considering that the Motion For New Trial filed by plaintiff has been favorably acted upon for the above reasons, the Notice of Appeal interposed by plaintiff on December 7, 1989 is hereby declared MOOTED." [2] The trial court ratiocinated that the final resolution of the case could not be held in abeyance indefinitely nor could petitioner's motion to dismiss the appeal still be entertained after their having waited for eight years before raising the issue. Petitioner moved to reconsider, but to no avail, the trial court's order of 16 July 1997. Dissatisfied, petitioner elevated the matter via a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals insisting that the trial court had acted capriciously and whimsically, as well as with grave abuse of discretion