BASILIO BIEN ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. MODESTO CASTILLO, ETC., AMBROSIO ARAGO, AND FELIX LAÑADA, RESPONDENTS.

In Tenancy Case No. 4010-R of the Court of Industrial Relations that court
rendered a decsion, authorizing the landlord to eject the tenants from their
respective landholdings for willful disobedience to his lawful orders. Notice of
the decision, together with a copy thereof, was received by the tenants, thru
counsel, on October 12, 1953. At the foot of the notice was the following-

“NOTE:

“1. Motion for reconsideration in six (6) copies duly verified under oath
shall be filed within five (5) days from receipt of a decision or order.
Arguments supporting same may be filed simultaneously or within ten (10) days
thereafter. The adverse party may file his answer or opposition with argument,
also in six (6) copies duly verified under oath, within ten (10) days from
receipt of the movant’s argument. (Secs. 15, 16, and 17, as amended, Rules of
C.I.R.)

“2. Notice of appeal and appeal may be perfected within ten (10) days from
the date the aggrieved party receives notice of the resolution of the C.I.R.
sitting en banc. (Manila Terminal Company, Case No. G.R. No.
L-4150, March 20, 1951.)”

On October 19, that is, 7 days after they were notified of the decision, the
tenants filed a pro forma motion for reconsideration, alleging
that the said decision was against the evidence and the law and praying that the
record of the case be forwarded to the Naga City branch of the court for the
purposes of reference and that “the ten (10) days period to present the
petitioners’ Motion For Reconsideration should be made to start” upon notice
that the record was always available for examination in Naga. (Counsel for the
tenants was apparently referring to the 10 days allowed for filing the
supporting arguments, which would otherwise commence to run from the filing of
the motion itself.) Acting on the motion, the court in banc, under
date of November 24, 1953, rendered the following-

“R E S O L U T I O N

“Counsel for petitioners having failed to file arguments in support of his
pro-forma motion for reconsideration, dated October 19, 1953, in
accordance with rules 15, 16, and 17 of this Court, let said motion be, as it is
hereby, DISMISSED.

“SO ORDERED.”

Reconsideration of this resolution having been denied, the tenants brought
the present action for certiorari to the said resolution set aside “as having
been issued with grave abuse of discretion” and to order the lower court to
allow the petitioners to present their arguments in support of their pro
forma motion for reconsideration.

Answering the petition, the respondent judge explains that in dismissing
petitioner’s first motion for reconsideration for their failure to file
arguments in support thereof, the prayer to have the record of the case sent to
Naga City “was disregard or ignored by the respondent judge as the petitioners’
counsel was presumed to know that the court records may not be withdrawn from
the court premises for the personal convenience of one party because they are
available for inspection in the court at any time during office hours;” and that
even assuming that the said motion “should not have been dismissed on the ground
of failure to file the supporting arguments, yet the said motion should in fact
be dismissed because the same was filed beyond the five-day period required by
the Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations.” Attached to the answer is a
copy of sections 15, 16, and 17 of those rules, which read as follows:

“MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONS

“SEC. 15. The movant shall file the motion, in six copies, within five (5)
days from the date on which he receives notice of the order or decision , object
of the motion for reconsideration, the same to be verified under oath with
respect to the correctness of the allegations of facts, and serving a copy
thereof, personally or by registered mail, on the adverse party. The latter may
file an answer, in six (6) copies, duly verified under oath.

“Sec. 16. Both the motion and the answer shall be submitted with arguments
supporting the same. If the arguments can not be submitted simultaneously with
said motion, upon notice to the Court, the movant shall file same within ten
(10) days from the date of the filing of his motion for reconsideration. The
adverse party shall also file his answer within ten (10) days from the receipt
by him of a copy of the arguments submitted by the movant.

“Sec. 17. After an answer to the motion is registered, or after ten (10) days
from the receipt of the arguments in support of said motion by the adverse party
without any answer having been filed, the motion shall be deemed submitted for
resolution of the Court in banc, unless it is considered necessary to
hear oral arguments, in which case the Court shall issue the corresponding order
or notice to that effect.

“Failure to observe the above specified periods shall be sufficient cause for
dismissal of the motion for reconsideration or striking out of the answer and/or
the supporting arguments, as the case may be.”

It is clear from the above rules, as well as from the condensed version
thereof appearing at the foot of the notice of decision, that a period of only
five days, from receipt of said notice, is allowed for the filing of a pro
forma motion for reconsideration, though the arguments in support thereof
may be filed later, that is, ten days after the filing of the motion itself. As
petitioners’ pro forma motion was filed seven days after notice of
decision, it is clear that the motion was out of time. Petitioners could have
asked for an extension of the five-day period for filing said motion, but a
petition of that nature should have been presented before the expiration of the
period, and this petitioners failed to do. Instead they asked for an extension
of the period allowed for submitting the supporting arguments, which was to no
purpose because the motion itself could no longer be considered. It may be added
that, as specifically provided in section 17 of the rules, failure to observe
the periods for filing the motion for reconsideration and its supporting
arguments is sufficient cause for dismissing either or both.

Counsel for petitioners explains that his failure file the support arguments
was due to the fact that the court did not pass upon his request to have the
record of the case sent to Naga and to have his time for filing the arguments
extended. But the point is immaterial for, the pro forma motion having
been itself filed out of time, its dismissal was in order in accordance with the
provisions of the rules, whether the arguments in support thereof were or were
not filed within the period therein provided.

In view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari is denied, but without
costs since petitioners have been allowed to litigate as paupers.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Agnelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., concur.