[G.R. No. 119794. March 7, 2001]

TOMAS SEE TUAZON vs. CA et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 7 2001.

G.R No. 119794 (Tomas See Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals and John Siy Lim.)

In his Motion for Reconsideration before us, petitioner alleges that he received a copy of the October 3, 2000 Decision of this Court on December 1, 2000. He subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplement to the aforesaid Motion, as well as the said Supplement.

Respondent, on the other hand, filed a Motion praying that the Motion for Reconsideration be denied because it was filed late, petitioner having allegedly received the assailed Decision on November 9, 2000, not on December 1, 2000. He also filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment, as well as an Opposition to the Motion for Leave to file the Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration.

Subsequently, in a telegram dated February 22, 2001, the Kalookan Central Post Office informed the Court that the assailed Decision was received on November 9, 2000 by petitioner’s counsel, through Ms. Myra Emphasis. We also note that petitioner has not controverted respondent’s allegation that his counsel received the Decision on November 9, 2000. Clearly, petitioner had until November 24, 2000 within which to file a Motion for Reconsideration. Since the Motion for Reconsideration was filed only on December 15, 2000, the assailed Decision had become final. We stress that the reglementary period for filing motions for reconsideration is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. (Ditching v. CA, 263 SCRA 343, October 18, 1996.)

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplement thereto are DENIED for having been filed late. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.

No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court