AVELINO ANGELES, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Angeles versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Angeles versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case in which Avelino Angeles was convicted of acts of lasciviousness. What reaches us here is not the trial itself but the last stage of the appeal: the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court's own Decision, which had dismissed his Petition for Review and affirmed the Regional Trial Court's judgment of conviction. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of the fifteen-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration, counted from notice to counsel. Second, it shows the Court's firm stance that a motion which merely repeats arguments already passed upon deserves no second look.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, Branch 15, found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court. On February 28, 2014, the Court promulgated its Decision dismissing that Petition for Review and affirming the conviction. The petitioner then filed the present Motion for Reconsideration of that Decision. The Court denied the motion, and it is that denial which this brief examines.

Facts

The petitioner alleged that he received a copy of the Court's Decision on March 13, 2014. The Registry Return Card, however, plainly revealed that his counsel received the Decision on March 12, 2014. Counting from that notice, the petitioner had fifteen days, or until March 27, 2014, within which to file a motion for reconsideration.

The petitioner filed his motion on March 28, 2014, one day late. The motion was therefore filed outside the reglementary period.

Beyond the timing, the Court examined the substance of the motion. It found that the arguments raised were a mere rehash of the arguments already raised in the Petition for Review and already fully considered and passed upon by the Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was filed within the fifteen-day period counted from notice to his counsel.
• Whether or not the arguments in the motion raised any new and substantial ground that would warrant reconsideration of the Court's Decision.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 52 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

Section 1. Period for filing. — A party may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party.

This provision fixes the period the petitioner failed to observe, and it is the basis for the Court's finding that the motion was filed one day late.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the motion was filed out of time. The petitioner claimed he received the Decision on March 13, 2014, but the Registry Return Card showed that his counsel received it on March 12, 2014. Notice to counsel is the reckoning point, so the fifteen-day period ran until March 27, 2014. The motion was filed on March 28, 2014, a day late, in clear violation of the rule:

Section 1. Period for filing. — A party may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party.

On the second issue, the Court held that even setting aside the technical lapse, the motion raised only arguments already considered and passed upon. The Court stressed that discussing each and every issue and argument all over again would be a useless ritual that would waste the Court's time, effort, and resources. Absent any new and substantial argument, there was no cogent reason to reverse, modify, or reconsider the Decision.

Doctrine

A motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution must be filed within fifteen days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party, as Section 1, Rule 52 commands. Notice to counsel is the notice that counts, and the period is counted from that date, not from the client's later receipt.

A motion for reconsideration that merely rehashes arguments already raised and already passed upon presents no new and substantial argument and will be denied. The Court is not obliged to repeat its reasoning; to do so would be a useless ritual.

Disposition

The Court denied the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, leaving his conviction for acts of lasciviousness standing.

Remember This

Memorize this line: fifteen days from notice to counsel, and a rehash is no argument at all. Examiners use this case to test the reckoning of the period for a motion for reconsideration and the rule against pro forma or repetitive motions.