LUIS CAMACHO, CAYETANO CURA AND ISMAELA TUAZON, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FILOMENA M. TINIO AND JOSE C. ALFONSO, RESPONDENTS.

Petition, later amended, for certiorari to review the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. L-30233, Filomena
Tinio vs. Cayetano Cura, et al., which modified the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Nueva Ecija
in Civil Case No. 3231, Filomena Tinio
vs. Cayetano Cura, et al.

A careful review of the records reveal the following:

The original petition herein was filed on September 17, 1963.  In its resolution of September 26, 1963, the Court dismissed said
petition, for being factual and for lack of merit.

Copy of this resolution was received by petitioner Luis Camacho
on October 16, 1963, but
it does not appear when the other petitioners were served with it.  On October 21, 1963, Camacho, personally and
assisted by Atty. Abraham R. Castañeda, filed a
motion for extension of fifteen (15) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to present a motion for reconsideration, which period was to expire
October 31, 1963.  By resolution of October
25, 1963, the motion
for extension was granted.  Hence, the extended
period for petitioner Camacho to move for reconsideration was to expire November
15, 1963.  Meanwhile, on November 8, 1963, Atty. Castañeda
filed his formal appearance “as additional counsel for petitioner Luis
Camacho.”

On the same date November 8, 1963, petitioners (no longer Camacho
alone), albeit thru Atty. Llorente (who was counsel
of Camacho as intervenor in the court below) and
Atty. Castañeda, filed a motion for leave to file an
amended petition for certiorari, claiming that they have realized that
an amended petition instead of a motion
for reconsideration would be preferable in order that the real and new issues
may be presented.  By resolution of November
14, 1963, this
motion for leave was denied. 
Nevertheless, on November 15, 1963, petitioner filed his announced amended
petition for certiorari.

On November 25, 1963,
the amended petition was dismissed for lack of merit.  The resolution of dismissal was served on
Attys. Llorente and Castañeda
on November 29, 1963.

On December 14, 1963,
petitioners, thru Attys. Llorente & Associates
and Abraham R. Castañeda, moved for reconsideration
of the dismissal.  By resolution of December 18, 1963, the motion was
denied.  Of this denial, Attys. Llorente & Associates and Castañeda
were notified on December 20, 1963.

Without leave of court,
on December 23, 1963, Attys. Llorente & Associates and Castañeda filed a second motion for reconsideration on
behalf of petitioners.  It appears that
by resolution of January 8, 1964, the Court reconsidered its resolutions of
November 25 and December 18, 1963 and gave due course to the amended petition
for certiorari.

After mature deliberation, We have come to ineludible conclusion
that the Court has no more authority or jurisdiction over this case, except to
formally set aside the resolution of January
8, 1964.  There can be no
question that on said date, the resolution of this Court dismissing the
original as well as the amended petitions herein had already become final and
unalterable.

As can be seen above, the last day for the filing of a motion for
reconsideration of the resolution of the Court dismissing the original petition
was November 15, 1963,
taking into account the motion for extension filed by petitioner Camacho on October 21, 1963.  (The other petitioners Catalino
Cura and Ismaela Tuazon did not ask for extension.) Instead of filing a
motion for re­consideration, petitioners, which would include Cura and Tuazon, filed, thru
Attys. Llorente & Associates & Castañeda, an amended petition for certiorari on November 15, 1963, notwithstanding
their motion for leave for such substitution was denied on November 14, 1963.

Now, the fact that petitioners filed an amended petition instead
of a motion for reconsideration did not affect the running of the period for
the finality of the resolution of dismissal of September 26, 1963. 
In fact, an amended petition raising new issues not alleged in the
original petition and filed beyond the period for appeal to the Supreme Court
from the Court of Appeals is not allowed, hence the denial resolution
aforementioned of December 14, 1963.  But even if We considered the amended
petition as a motion for reconsideration and disregarding the fact that it
raises belatedly issues and questions not raised in the original petition, its
dismissal on November 25, 1963, had the effect of making the dismissal of
petitioners’ appeal to this Court final after December 1, 1963, under the most
liberal interpretation of the rules existing at the time.  (Rules of 1940.) Note that counsel for
petitioners were notified of the resolution of November 25, 1963 on November
29, 1963, and since they were entitled to move the day after notice, and this
was November 30, 1963, a public holiday, hence their last day became December
1, 1963.

Therefore, when petitioners filed on December 14, 1963 their
motion for reconsideration of the dismissal resolution of November 25, 1963,
which was served on their counsel on November 29, 1963, they assumed that
because they had filed an amended petition instead of a motion for reconsideration,
they acquired a new period of fifteen (15) days from denial thereof to move for
reconsideration.  Of course, that
assumption is incorrect.

But even assuming they had a new period, their motion for
reconsideration (amended petition) was denied on December 18, 1963 and copy of the denial resolution was
served on their counsel on December
20, 1963.  Since their motion
for reconsideration filed on December
14, 1963 was filed on the last day, therefore, the denial
resolution of December 18, 1963
received by them on December 20, 1963,
became final at the latest December
22, 1963.  Pursuant to
Section 1 of Rule 56 of the Rules of 1940, then in force, the latest a second
motion for reconsideration could be filed was “within two days from notice
of the order denying the first motion.” 
In this case this notice of denial was served on December 20, 1963.  And it being indisputable that petitioners’
second motion for reconsideration was filed only on December 23, 1963, it was late.  And, furthermore, it was filed without leave
of court.

Parenthetically, after a re-study of the original as well as the
amended petition in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to
be reviewed, We are convinced that the main issues raised by petitioners necessarily
involve findings of fact of that Court which are not shown to be unsupported by
substantial evidence.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolved to set aside the resolution
of January 8, 1963 and to
declare its orders of dismissal of November
25, 1963 (including the resolution of September 26, 1963) final and executory.

Fernando, (Chairman), Antonio, and
Martin,* JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., in the result.

Concepcion, Jr., J., did not take part.

* Mr. Justice Ruperto
G. Martin was designated to sit in the Second Division.