#Ca sample motion for reconsideration trial#
No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. When a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed by the party, which was subsequently denied by the court, there is a fresh period of fifteen (15) days within which to file the notice of appeal, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.Ī party’s appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.Īpplying the foregoing to the instant case, it is not disputed that the RTC rendered its Decision dated August 5, 2010, which resolved the merits of the Custody case, upholding Soriano’s right to parental custody and parental authority, albeit ruling that it will be for the best interest of the child to stay with Bernardo first for the school year 2009-2010 while studying at Notre Dame of Greater Manila.Īn appealable judgment or final order refers to one that adjudicates the parties’ contention and determines their rights and liabilities as regards each other, disposing the whole subject matter of the case. The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. With respect to the period for filing the notice of appeal, the appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.
In connection with the foregoing, Section 5 of the same Rule states that the notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the appeal, specify the judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from, specify the court to which the appeal is being taken, and state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal. The Court resolves to deny the instant Petition.Īccording to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.įurther, according to Section 2(a) of the same Rule, the appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. Whether or not RTC and CA were correct in denying due course to the Notice of Appeal filed by Iluminada due to the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration by the opposing party of the same decision. Simply stated a final order contemplates one in which there is nothing more for the court to do in order to resolve the case. X x x Unlike a ‘ final judgment or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an ‘interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. x x x According to the CA, the RTC’s Decision cannot yet be considered a judgment that may be appealed due to the filing of Soriano’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration because, as explained by the CA: Iluminada filed a petition for certiorari with the CA on the RTC’s denial of her Notice of Appeal. Ana’s timely filing of her Motion for Reconsideration did not make the case final, and thus, subject to appeal. The RTC, however, denied due course to her Notice of Appeal, as it held that Ma. The RTC’s denial of Iluminada’s motion for reconsideration prompted her to file a Notice of Appeal on September 8, 2010. Ana also filed, via registered mail, her own Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated August 5, 2010. Iluminada filed her Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision, which the RTC denied on August 31, 2010. Ana, but that in the meantime, Stephanie Verniese shall remain in the care of Iluminada for the duration of the school year 2009 to 2010. In a Decision, the presiding judge decided that parental custody shall be awarded to Ma. The latter’s mother, Ana Marie, filed a Complaint-in-Intervention, seeking custody also of Stephanie Verniese. In a Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Iluminada (Bernardo) against the Social Worker of the DSWD in Mandaluyong, the trial court converted the case into a custody case upon a finding that no illegal detention exists on the part of Iluminada’s grandchild, Stephanie Verniese.
0 kommentar(er)
