G.R. No. 193034 - RODGING REYES, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SALUD M. GEGATO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 10 days of arresto menor and the moral damages of P100,000.00 be reduced to P50,000.00, attorney's fee of P20,000.00 stands. The original decision is hereby modified. If accused does not file an appeal within the reglementary period, let the entire records be returned back to the Court of origin for proper disposition thereat. [6] Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and in its Amended Decision [7] dated May 16, 2007, the RTC denied the motion and modified its original decision reducing the amount of moral damages to P10,000.00 and the attorneys fees to P10,000.00. Thus, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review. However, instead of filing a petition for review within the 15-day period allowed by the CA, petitioner filed a second Motion for Extension of Time asking for another 15 days within which to file his petition for review. Afterwhich, petitioner filed his petition. Thereafter, the CA, in its Resolution [8] dated August 2, 2007, dismissed the petition. The Resolution partly reads, as follows: Petitioner's first Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review asking for fifteen (15) days from June 6, 2007 or until June 21, 2007 is DENIED for failure to pay the full amount of the docket fees pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. His second motion for extension is likewise DENIED as no further extension may be granted except for most compelling reason. The petition subsequently filed is, however, NOTED but DISMISSED on the following grounds: 1. Filed beyond the reglementary period; 2. Failure of petitioner to pay complete docket fees as prescribed by law. It is deficient by P3,530.00; 3. Failure of petitioner to indicate a complete statement of material dates as required under the Rules. Petitioner did not mention in the body of the petition when he received the RTC's Order dated May 16, 2007 denying his Motion for Reconsideration; 4. Failure of petitioner to attach pertinent documents material in the petition. No copy of the May 16, 2007 Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration was attached to the petition. On August 14, 2007, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated October 17, 2008 for failure of the petitioner to furnish copies to the Solicitor General and the private respondent. Thus, petitioner filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration. The CA, in its Resolution dated November 23, 2009, denied the said motion, the dispositive portion of which, reads: ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVES to: 1. DISPENSE with the Offices of the Solicitor General's comment on the petitioner's second Motion for Reconsideration dated 13 November 2008; 2. GRANT the petitioner's second Motion for Reconsideration dated 13 November 2008, and RECONSIDER and SET ASIDE the Court's 17 October 2008 Resolution dismissing the petitioner's first Motion for R