G.R. No. 183239 - De Leon vs. Hercules Agro Industrial Corp.

The petitioner initiated a breach of contract action for damages and a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-89938.

$142,080 (converted at P26.41 per dollar) plus legal interest.
P100,000 in attorney’s fees.
P477,622 for customs duties and taxes.
P6,358.40 for payment relating to the analysis of delivered milk and its sample.

The claims against Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and Jesus Chua were dismissed for want of evidence.
The counterclaims of Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and Jesus Chua were likewise dismissed due to the absence of concrete evidence.

On October 19, 2005, petitioner filed a Motion for Time, asking for an additional 10 days (until October 29, 2005) to file a motion for reconsideration.
The RTC denied the Motion for Time because the period to file a motion for reconsideration was non-extendible.
Petitioner subsequently filed his Motion for Partial Reconsideration on October 24, 2005.
Respondent Rumi Rungis Milk filed its Motion for Reconsideration on November 2, 2005, also seeking dismissal of the complaint on jurisdictional grounds concerning a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines.
The RTC denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration on January 9, 2006.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Partial Appeal on February 13, 2006 from the January 9, 2006 Order, which was later declared untimely.
Additional motions by petitioner included a motion for reconsideration, a supplement to his earlier motion, and a request for partial execution of the RTC Decision; however, the RTC denied these motions, noting issues of timeliness and procedural non-compliance.
At the Court of Appeals (CA), procedural filings continued through November and December 2006.
On January 7, 2008, the CA issued a Resolution ordering that petitioner’s appellant’s brief be stricken from the records, dismissing his appeal as it was filed out of time.
On June 2, 2008, the CA denied motions for reconsideration filed by both petitioner and respondent Rumi Rungis Milk.

Petitioner’s appeal was not legally perfected, being filed beyond the reglementary period.
The claim for overpayment of fees should be directed to the Chief Justice via the Court Administrator.
The motion to lift the amended order of attachment and release properties was to be filed before the RTC.

Subsequently, with motions for reconsideration by both parties, the CA reaffirmed its rulings in its second Resolution dated June 2, 2008.
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review only to consider whether the CA erroneously ordered the appellant’s brief to be stricken.

Whether the CA erred in ordering petitioner’s appellant’s brief be stricken from the records.

Specifically, the issue is whether the dismissal was proper given the non-extendible period for filing a motion for reconsideration.

Whether petitioner’s attempt to file a motion for extension of time to file a motion for partial reconsideration could toll the reglementary period for appeal.

This includes examining the efficacy of the partial appeal filed subsequent to the RTC’s denial of his extension motion.

Whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration by respondent Rumi Rungis Milk affected the finality of the RTC decision and, by extension, petitioner’s right to appeal.