Restatement of Rules on Filing of Motions for Extension of Time to File Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

August 28, 1986

SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 10-86

 

MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

In G.R. No. 70895, entitled "Habalayas Enterprises, Inc. and Pedro Habalayas vs. Judge Maximo M. Japzon, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Manila; Shugo Noda & Co., Ltd., and Shuyo Noda", promulgated on May 30, 1986, the Supreme Court En Banc Resolved, to wit: cdt

". . . Hence, for the guidance of Bench and Bar, the Court restates and clarifies the rules on this point, as follows:

"1.) Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court. Such A motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. [See Rolloque vs. CA, 193 SCRA 47; Caltex (Phils.) Inc. vs. IAC, 215 SCRA 580]

"2.) In appeals in special proceedings under Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and in other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, a motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal may be filed within the reglementary period of thirty (30) days. (Moya vs. Barton, 76 Phil. 831; Heirs of Nantes vs. Court of Appeals, July 25, 1983, 123 SCRA 753.) If the court denies the motion for extension, the appeal must be taken within the original period (Bello vs. Fernando, January 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 135); inasmuch as such a motion does not suspend the period for appeal (Reyes vs. Sta. Maria, November 20, 1972, 48 SCRA 1). The trial court may grant said motion after the expiration of the period for appeal provided it was filed within the original period. (Valero vs. Court of Appeals, June 28, 1973, 51 SCRA 467; Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals, September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 228).

"All appeals heretofore timely taken, after extensions of time were granted for the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, shall be allowed and determined on the merits."

xxx xxx xxx

Modes And Periods Of Appeal

In G.R. No. 73146-53, entitled "Rosario Lacsamana, Florencio Bautista, Quirico Paclibar, Eduardo Ocampo, Julio Barizo, Pedro Pangilinan, et al. vs. The Honorable Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court, Anicia I. Cruz, et al.", promulgated on August 26, 1986, the Supreme Court En Banc Resolved further to restate and clarify the modes and periods of appeal as follows:

"1.) ORDINARY APPEALS BY MERE NOTICE OF APPEAL.

"In an ordinary appeal from the final judgment or order of a metropolitan or municipal trial court to the regional trial court, and from the regional trial court to the Court of Appeals in actions or proceedings originally filed in the regional trial court, the fifteen-day period for appeal provided by Section 39 of BP No. 129 and Section 19 (a) of the Interim Rules is interrupted or suspended by a motion for new trial or reconsideration, unless such motion fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 37 (Section 3 of Rule 41). If the motion for new trial or reconsideration is denied, the moving party has only the remaining period from notice of denial within which to file a notice of appeal which is the only requirement for taking an appeal under the present rules. Obviously, no extension of time to file such a notice of appeal is needed, much less allowed." [See Liboro vs. CA, 218 SCRA 193]" cd

"2.) APPEALS IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND OTHER CASES WHEREIN MULTIPLE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED.

"In an appeal in a special proceeding under Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and in other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal is thirty days, a record on appeal being required (Section 19[b] of the Interim Rules). If a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed and denied, the remaining period within which to file a record on appeal may be too short and, hence, a motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal may be granted, subject to the requirements summarized in the Resolution of May 30, 1986. As the Court stated in the case of Roque vs. Gunigundo, 'the thirty-day period may be extended because, where the record is voluminous or the appellant has other pressing matters to attend to, it may not be practicable to submit the record on appeal within the reglementary period." (89 SCRA 178, 183)

"3.) APPEALS BY PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.

"The final judgment or order of a regional trial court in an appeal from the final judgment or order of a metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court, may be appealed to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review in accordance with Section 22 of BP No. 129 and Section 22 (b) of the Interim Rules, or to this Court through a petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Section 25 of the Interim Rules. The reason for extending the period for the filing of a record on appeal is also applicable to the filing of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The period for filing a petition for review is fifteen days. If a motion for reconsideration is filed with and denied by a regional trial court, the movant has only the remaining period within which to file a petition for review. Hence, it may be necessary to file a motion with the Court of Appeals for extension of time to file such petition for review. [Liboro vs. CA, 218 SCRA 193]

"4.) APPEALS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.

"In an appeal from quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of Appeals under Republic Act No. 5434 and Section 22(c) of the Interim Rules, the appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals and with the quasi-judicial body within fifteen days from notice of the ruling, award, order, decision or judgment; or in case a motion for reconsideration is filed within said "period," then within ten days from notice of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. (Sections 2 and 3 of RA No. 5434). No extension of time to file such a notice of appeal is needed, much less allowed.[N.B. This is superseded/repealed by Cir. No. 1-91, dated February 27, 1991].

"5.) APPEALS BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT.

"In an appeal by certiorari to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Section 25 of the Interim Rules and Section 7 of PD No. 1606, a party may file a petition for review on certiorari of the judgment of a Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals, or the Sandiganbayan within fifteen days from notice of judgment or of the denial of his motion for reconsideration filed in due time, and paying at the same time the corresponding docket fee (Section 1 of Rule 45). In other words, in the event a motion for reconsideration is filed and denied, the period of fifteen days begins to run again from notice of denial. (See Codilla vs. Estenzo, 97 SCRA 351; Turingan vs. Cacdac, 122 SCRA 634).

"A motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari may be filed with the Supreme Court within the reglementary period, paying at the same time the corresponding docket fee.

"Copies of the motion for extension of time and of the subsequent petition for review on certiorari must be served on the lower court and on the adverse part.

"6.) PERIOD OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW.

"Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Decision, the extension of only fifteen days filing a petition for review may be granted by the Court of Appeals, save in exceptionally meritorious cases.

"The motion for extension of time must be filed and the corresponding docket fee paid within the reglementary period of appeal.

"Copies of the motion for extension of time and of the subsequent petition for review must be served on the regional trial court and on the adverse party."

xxx xxx xxx

Please be guided accordingly.

August 28, 1986.

(SGD.) CLAUDIO TEEHANKEEChief Justice