G.R. No. 46100 - Rizal vs. Mercado

Parties and nature of the proceedings
Alfredo Hidalgo Rizal (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari.
Josefa Rizal Mercado et al. (respondents) were the adverse parties in the underlying civil case and opposed the appeal previously dismissed.
The case involved a request for a new trial in relation to the petitioner’s prior petition for certiorari granted by the Court.

Prior petition for certiorari and procedural posture
The Court granted the petitioner a petition for certiorari by resolution dated February 4, 1939.
After the grant, each party submitted a memorandum in support of his contention.
The petitioner sought reversal of the decision of the second division of the Court of Appeals that dismissed the appeal taken by the petitioner from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The petitioner requested that the Court of Appeals reinstate the dismissed appeal and decide it on the merits.
Respondents assented to the relief prayed for, in order to avoid being condemned to pay costs, and asked for judgment on the merits.

Underlying civil case and trial court events
On January 10, 1935, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in civil case No. 44808 against the defendant, which included the petitioner Alfredo Hidalgo Rizal.
The petitioner received notice of the judgment on January 14, 1935.
On January 23, 1935, within the relevant time period, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the judgment was contrary to law and the weight of the evidence.
The Court of First Instance denied the motion for reconsideration by order dated January 30, 1935.
On February 6, 1935, the petitioner received notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
On February 8, 1935, the petitioner excepted to that order and asked for a new trial on the same ground that the judgment was contrary to law and the weight of the evidence.
By order dated February 16, 1935, the Court of First Instance denied the motion for new trial.
On February 21, 1935, the petitioner filed his exception and notice of appeal.
On March 2, 1935, the petitioner filed the corresponding bill of exceptions.

Timelines and computations relied upon by the Court of Appeals
From January 14, 1935 (notice of judgment) to January 23, 1935 (filing of the motion for reconsideration, treated as equivalent to a motion for new trial), nine days elapsed.
At that time, twenty-one of the thirty days remained for filing the motion.
The filing of the motion for reconsideration suspended the running of the remaini...(Subscriber-Only)

Timeliness of the exception and notice of appeal
Whether the filing of the petitioner’s exception and notice of intention to appeal on February 21, 1935 was timely.
Whether the petitioner’s filing was rendered untimely because the filing occurred five days after the denial of the last motion for new trial.

Timeliness of the bill of exceptions
Whether the petitioner’s filing of the bill of exceptions on March 2, 1935 was timely for having been filed within the applicable period counted from the proper date of notice of intention to appeal.

Effect of multiple motions for new trial within the statutory period
Whether the petitioner could file multiple motions for new trial within the thirty days allowed by law.
Whether a second motion for new trial based on the same grounds as the first motion suspended the running of the remaining period.
How the doctrine in Aquino vs. Tongco contro...(Subscriber-Only)