Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

G.R. No.

193650 October 8, 2014 Whether certiorari is a proper remedy from an order denying the
motion for new trial or reconsideration. NO.
GEORGE PIDLIP P. PALILEO and JOSE DE LA CRUZ, Palileo et. al,
vs.
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.
I. Whether the Motion was filed on time. NO.
DECISION
PDB’s Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial was
DEL CASTILLO, J.: filed one day too late.

Factual Antecedents July 17, 2006: PDB received a copy of the decision

An action for specific performance was filed by Palileo et. al against it had 15 days – or up to August 1, 2006 – within which to file a notice
Planters Development Bank et. al. of appeal, motion for reconsideration, or a motion for new trial,
pursuant to the Rules of Court.
June 15, 2006: RTC ruled in favour of Palileo et. al.
32 Yet, it filed the omnibus motion for reconsideration and new trial
July 17, 2006: PDB received a copy of the decision only on August 2, 2006.

July 31, 2006: filed by private courier service – specifically LBC6 – an Realizing its mistake, PDB re-filed and re-sent the omnibus motion by
Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial, registered mail, which is the proper mode of service under the
circumstances. By then, however, the 15-day period had expired.
July 31, 2006: Palileo’s copy was sent on that same day but in their
address: Tupi, South Cotabato, but no LBC service at the time.

August 2, 2006: PDB filed another copy via registered mail and II. What is the proper remedy from an order denying the
another was sent to Palileo et. al. motion for new trial or reconsideration.
a. Whether PDB availed of the proper remedy.
Palileo et. al moved for the execution of the Decision pending appeal.
Rule 37 Sec 9: Remedy against order denying motion for new trial or
RTC granted. reconsideration. An order denying a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is not appealable, the remedy being an appeal from
the judgment or final order.
PDB filed with the CA an original Petition for Certiorari assailing 1) the
trial court’s August 30, 2006 Order – which denied the omnibus
motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision and for new trial; In this case, certiorari was resorted to by PDB when the remedy
should have been an appeal.
CA: dismissed petition for certiorari, but later reversed and ruled in
PDB’s favor SC: certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, especially if one’s
own negligence or error in one’s choice of remedy occasioned such
loss.

In this case, such negligence is evident by virtue of PDB’s belated


Palileo et. al:
filing and service.

1st filing was improper.


Since PDB’s Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial
was filed late and the 15-day period within which to appeal expired
PDB’s filing of its Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New without PDB filing the requisite notice of appeal, it follows that its
Trial on July 31, 2006 by courier service through LBC was improper, right to appeal has been foreclosed; it may no longer question the
since there was no LBC courier service in Tupi, South Cotabato at the trial court’s Decision in any other manner. "
time; naturally, they did not receive a copy of the omnibus motion.

2nd filing:This is precisely the reason why PDB re-filed its omnibus
motion on August 2, 2006 through registered mail, that is, to cure the
defective service by courier;

but by then, the 15-day period within which to move for


reconsideration or new trial, or to file a notice of appeal, had already
expired, as the last day thereof fell on August 1, 2006 – counting
from PDB’s receipt of the trial court’s Decision on July 17, 2006.

PDB’s resort to an original Petition for Certiorari to assail the trial


court’s August 30, 2006 Order denying the Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration and for New Trial was improper, for as provided
under Section 9, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court,30 an order denying a
motion for new trial or reconsideration is not appealable, the remedy
being an appeal from the judgment or final order;

ISSUE:

Whether the motion was filed on time. NO.