G.R. No. L-6089. April 20, 1954

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Cebu dismissing the above-entitled case, which had been appealed to
said court from the municipal court of Cebu City. The appeal was
certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals on the ground that only
questions of law are raised in the appeal.

The action brought in the Municipal Court of Cebu City seeks to
recover from the defendant the sum of P180.50, the balance of the value
of furniture and other goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the
defendant. The main issue of fact involved in the trial was the
authenticity of the signature of one Aquilino O. Mercado to Exhibit A.
Judgment was entered in said court in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant for the sum of P180.50 as prayed for in the
complaint. The decision was rendered on November 18, 1949, and the
defendant received notice thereof on November 21, 1949. On December 2,
1949, defendant presented a motion for the reconsideration of the
decision, alleging that the same was not justified in view of the fact
that the signature to Exhibit A is forged, according to the testimony
of an expert witness. It was also alleged that for the sake of justice
and equity the court should order the National Bureau of Investigation
to examine the disputed signature in Exhibit A. This motion for
reconsideration was denied, and the defendant appealed to the Court of
First Instance. The appeal was perfected within fourteen days if the
period of time taken by the court in deciding the motion for
reconsideration is not taken into account. After the defendant had
filed an answer in the Court of First Instance, plaintiff moved to
dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the period
prescribed in the rules. In support thereof it was claimed that the
motion for reconsideration filed in the municipal court was a pro forma
motion, which did not suspend the period for perfecting the appeal. The
Court of First Instance sustained the motion to dismiss the appeal,
holding that the ground on which the motion for reconsideration is
based is not one of those required for a motion for new trial under
section 1 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.

The only question at issue in this Court is whether the motion for reconsideration filed in the municipal court is a pro forma
motion. The question must be decided in the negative. The motion was
based on the claim that the finding of the trial court as to the
authenticity of the disputed signature to Exhibit A was not justified
by the evidence submitted, which is the testimony of the expert witness
denying such authenticity. This is a motion which points out why the
finding of the court is not justified by the evidence, and is clearly
not a pro form a motion for new trial or reconsideration. The Court of
First Instance erred in holding that it did not suspend the period for
perfecting the appeal.

The order of dismissal is hereby reversed, and the case is ordered
remanded to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Diokno, JJ., concur.