RULE 37: NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

G.R. NO. L-45885 April 28, 1983

JULIAN MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. HON. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF
BULACAN, BRANCH III, and SPOUSES RENATO MACAPAGAL and CORAZON MACAPAGAL, Respondents

DIRECT APPEAL BY PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORAI

DOCTRINE: While it is true that a motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for new trial if based on a ground
for new trial, the so-called "motion for reconsideration" which is not called as such in Rule 37 is the term commonly used
to refer to a motion for new trial under subdivision (c) of Section I of Rule 37. An affidavit of merit is required in a motion
for new trial pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 37 if the motion for new trial is based on any of the causes mentioned in
subdivision (a) of Section I of Rule 37, to wit, fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. No similar requirement is
imposed for a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration under subdivision (c) of the same section.

FACTS:
1. Petitioner Julian Mendoza and private respondents, spouses Renato Macapagal and Corazon Macapagal,
entered into a written contract, entitled "Kasunduan Sa Pagpapatayo Ng Tirahang Bahay" whereby for and in
consideration of the sum of P320,000.00, the petitioner undertook to construct a residential house for the private
respondents under the terms and conditions therein provided for.
2. The construction of the house was attended by some misunderstandings between the parties, with the petitioner
claiming that he is entitled to certain amounts which the private respondents refused to pay, and the latter in turn
alleging that the petitioner should pay them damages for having abandoned the job.
3. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan against the private respondents for the
recovery of two separate sums, namely, (a) the amount of P145,814.00 supposedly representing the value of the
additional work performed by the petitioner in constructing the house conformably to the request of the private
respondents; and (b) the sum of P48,000.00 representing the unpaid balance of the contract price of
P320,000.00.
4. After the private respondents filed their answer to the complaint, a pre-trial was conducted in which the parties
failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.
5. Before any trial was conducted, however, the private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the same does not state a cause of action.
6. The petitioner filed an opposition to the said motion to dismiss.
7. The respondent Judge dismissed the said motion to dismiss on the ground that the additional work claimed to
have been performed by plaintiff in the construction of defendants' house consisting of various changes and
modifications in the materials and workmanship were done by the former devoid of any written agreement.
8. A motion for the reconsideration was likewise denied by the respondent Judge in an order. The said two orders of
the respondent Judge are the subject-matter of the instant appeal.
9. In moving for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action, the private
respondents contend that the petitioner may not claim the value of the additional work performed in the
construction of the house inasmuch as the private respondents have not given the petitioner a written authority for
such additional work, as required by Article 1724 of the New Civil Code.
10. The petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) the filing of a motion to dismiss may not be
done after an answer had already been filed; and (2) the complaint alleges two causes of action: the first, for the
recovery of the value of the additional work amounting to P145,814.00; and the second, for the recovery of
P48,000.00 representing the unpaid balance of the contract price. Hence, assuming that the first cause of action
may not prosper in view of Article 1724 of the Civil Code, the same deficiency may not apply to the second cause
of action.
11. The Court ruled that the error in dismissing the complaint is quite obvious. While there may be some legal basis
for the ruling that the petitioner has no cause of action with respect to the recovery of the value of the additional
work in view of the provisions of Article 1724 of the New Civil Code, there appears to be no basis for dismissing
the complaint insofar as the second cause of action for the recovery of P48,000.00 is concerned.
 Although the petitioner admits that he had no written authorization for performing the additional work, the
private respondents similarly admit that they have not paid the aforesaid sum of P48,000.00 to the
petitioner. They merely justify the non-payment thereof by claiming that the petitioner abandoned the
work, and that they spent an amount greater than the unpaid balance in finishing the construction of the
house.
12. Realizing, perhaps, the weakness of their position in sustaining the order of the respondent Judge in dismissing
the complaint, the private respondents, in their memorandum, resorted to additional grounds for upholding
such dismissal. They now contend that this petition for certiorari may not be entertained because it is being
 utilized as a substitute for appeal, and that it was filed out of time. Neither of these contentions of the private
respondents find support in applicable rules.
13. Private respondent further argue that a motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for new trial.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE INSTANT PETITION IS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND WAS FILED OUT OF
TIME

HELD: NO.
The instant proceeding is not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It is an appeal by petition for
review on certiorari in accordance with Republic Act No. 5440. It is illogical, therefore, to claim that the petitioner is
resorting to this proceeding as a substitute for appeal, it being an appeal in itself.

The contention that the petition was filed out of time is predicated on the claim that the motion for reconsideration was
defective for being pro-forma and for failing to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court regarding such a
motion. We fail to see how the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner may be considered pro-forma, the same
having called the attention of the trial court to a point which the latter totally ignored in the order dismissing the complaint.
The requirement which the petitioner supposedly failed to observe in filing his motion for reconsideration was the failure to
attach an affidavit of merit to the same. Private respondents argue that a motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a
motion for new trial and, under Section 2 of Rule 37, when the motion for new trial is filed, affidavits of merits should be
attached to the motion. Once again, private respondents misinterpreted the rules. While it is true that a motion for
reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for new trial if based on a ground for new trial, the so-called "motion for
reconsideration" which is not called as such in Rule 37 is the term commonly used to refer to a motion for new trial under
subdivision (c) of Section I of Rule 37. An affidavit of merit is required in a motion for new trial pursuant to Section 2 of
Rule 37 if the motion for new trial is based on any of the causes mentioned in subdivision (a) of Section I of Rule 37, to
wit, fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. No similar requirement is imposed for a motion for new trial or
motion for reconsideration under subdivision (c) of the same section.

The timeliness of the filing of this petition may not be validly questioned. The order dismissing the complaint was received
by the petitioner on January 25, 1977. The motion for reconsideration was received on February 1, 1977. The order
denying the motion for reconsideration was received by the petitioner on March 21, 1977. Within fifteen days thereafter or
on April 4, 1977, the instant petition was filed before this Court.

WHEREFORE, the orders of the respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 339- V-76 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
The motion to dismiss filed by the private respondents shall be deemed DENIED. Let the records of this case be
remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.

(NOTE: In simpler terms, the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the respondent judge because of the
absence of the affidavit of merit (the written authorization). Private respondents argue that the MR is equivalent to a
Motion for a New Trial & one of the requirements of MNT is an affidavit of merit to be attached to the motion. The ruling of
SC relevant to Rule 37: please refer to the doctrine above)