Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21850)
Facts:
Luis Camacho, Cayetano Cura and Ismaela Tuazon v. The Court of Appeals, Filomena M. Tinio and Jose C. Alfonso, G.R. No. L-21850, April 29, 1977, Supreme Court Second Division, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioners (Camacho, Cura and Tuazon) sought certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. L-30233 (Filomena Tinio v. Cayetano Cura, et al.) which had modified the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in Civil Case No. 3231. The petition for certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court on September 17, 1963.
On September 26, 1963, the Supreme Court (on the original petition) dismissed the petition for being factual and for lack of merit. A copy of that resolution was received by petitioner Luis Camacho on October 16, 1963. On October 21, 1963 Camacho personally, through Atty. Abraham R. Castaneda, moved for an extension of fifteen days from the expiration of the reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration; the Court granted that extension on October 25, 1963, making the last day for Camacho to move November 15, 1963. On November 8, 1963 Atty. Castaneda filed a formal appearance as additional counsel.
Also on November 8, 1963, petitioners — now represented by Attys. Llorente and Castaneda — moved for leave to file an amended petition for certiorari in order to present new issues; that motion for leave was denied on November 14, 1963, but on November 15, 1963 the amended petition was nevertheless filed. The amended petition was dismissed on November 25, 1963; the dismissal resolution was served on counsel on November 29, 1963.
On December 14, 1963 petitioners, through their counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of the November 25 dismissal; that motion was denied by resolution dated December 18, 1963, notice of which was served on counsel on December 20, 1963. Without leave, on December 23, 1963 counsel filed a second motion for reconsideration. On January 8, 1964 the Court purportedly reconsidered its November 25 and December 18 resolutions and gave due course to the amended petition.
The present petition challenged the Court's January 8, 1964 resolution that gave due course to the amended petition. The Supreme Court reexamined the chronology a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals (via the Supreme Court's prior resolutions) retain authority to reconsider and give due course to the amended petition after its earlier dismissal had become final?
- Were petitioners' motions for reconsideration (and the filing of the amended petition) timely and proper to extend or revive the reglementary periods for seeking relief?
- Were the principal issues raised by petitioners reviewable by certiorari, or do they involve factual...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)