DEMETRIO JAUGAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Jaugan versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Demetrio Jaugan against the People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals. Jaugan had been convicted by the Court of Appeals of homicide and sought review by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari. The case matters because the Court here refuses to bend the rules of procedure for a litigant who simply filed too late, and it teaches the exact arithmetic of the reglementary periods and the rule that a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration does not stop the clock.

Procedural History

The Court of Appeals, in a criminal case, found Jaugan guilty of homicide, attended by two aggravating circumstances and one mitigating circumstance, and sentenced him accordingly. Jaugan then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review by way of certiorari, asking that the case be reopened and a new trial granted so that certain annexes could be introduced as evidence. The Supreme Court denied that petition for being late. Jaugan filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court also denied. He then filed the present motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, which in truth was already a motion for reconsideration, praying that the two earlier resolutions be corrected and that the petition for certiorari be given due course.

Facts

Jaugan received notice of the decision of the Court of Appeals on June 20, 1968. The fifteen-day period to file a petition for certiorari or a motion for rehearing would therefore expire on July 5, 1968. The Court of Appeals granted him thirty days of extension to file a motion for reconsideration or new trial, extending the period to appeal by certiorari up to August 4, 1968. He filed his motion for reconsideration and new trial on July 23, 1968, admittedly within the extended period.

That motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of August 6, 1968, and Jaugan received notice on August 22, 1968. Counting from August 23, 1968, he had fifteen days under Section 1 of Rule 45 within which to appeal by certiorari, a period that expired on September 6, 1968. On August 23, 1968, however, he again asked the Court of Appeals for permission to file a second motion for reconsideration and new trial, which that court denied on September 3, 1968, with notice received on September 10 or 11.

Jaugan filed his petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court only on October 29, 1968. The Court denied it as late on November 5, 1968, and counsel received notice on November 11, 1968. On November 21, 1968, he filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on December 2, 1968, with notice received on December 6, 1968. Eleven days later, on December 17, 1968, he filed the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration now before the Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration was filed within the period allowed by the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari was filed on time.
• Whether or not the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and new trial suspended the running of the fifteen-day period to appeal by certiorari.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 52 of the Rules of Court governs the period to move for reconsideration, and the Court cites it to hold that the motion for leave was filed out of time:

Section 1. Period for filing motion for reconsideration. A party may file a motion for reconsideration of any order, judgment or final resolution of a court within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof.

Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court fixes the fifteen-day period to appeal by certiorari, and it is the measure against which Jaugan's petition failed:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the motion for leave was filed out of time under Section 1 of Rule 52. Counsel received notice of the November 5 resolution on November 11, 1968, and the motion was filed only on December 17, 1968, well beyond the fifteen-day period.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition for certiorari was filed late. Counting from receipt of notice of the Court of Appeals resolution on August 22, 1968, the fifteen-day period under Section 1 of Rule 45 expired on September 6, 1968, yet the petition was filed only on October 29, 1968.

On the third issue, the Court held that the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and new trial did not suspend the running of the fifteen-day period, and neither did the subsequent motions for reconsideration. As the Court put it, the motion for leave, contrary to the belief apparently entertained by petitioner's counsel, did not suspend the running of the period, and when the petition was filed the period had long expired.

Doctrine

A motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and new trial does not suspend the running of the fifteen-day period to appeal by certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 45, and neither do subsequent motions for reconsideration. The reglementary periods are counted strictly from notice, and the timely filing of the appeal, not the filing of further motions, is what vests the appellate court with jurisdiction. A second motion for reconsideration is a disfavored pleading, and a motion for leave to file one that is itself filed beyond the fifteen-day period of Section 1 of Rule 52 must be denied.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied Jaugan's motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, so the People of the Philippines prevailed and the conviction stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration does not toll the fifteen-day period to appeal by certiorari. Examiners use this case to test the strict counting of reglementary periods and the rule that dilatory motions cannot revive a lost appeal.