Esquivel-Cabatit v. Court of Agrarian Relations
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Basilio Fernandez instituted CAR Case No. 46-Z '60 seeking reinstatement as tenant on a landholding owned by Alejandra Esquivel-Cabatit (Mrs. Cabatit), alleging illegal ouster by Mrs. Cabatit and Mr. and Mrs. Esquivel. The Esquivels denied the allegations, asserting Fernandez was never their tenant, and questioned the court's jurisdiction. Mrs. Cabatit did not file an answer. Procedural History: The Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) rendered a decision on September 1, 1961, ordering the Esquivels to reinstate Fernandez as tenant and pay him fifty (50) cavanes of palay annually. The case against Mrs. Cabatit and the Esquivels' counterclaim were dismissed. Fernandez moved for execution on March 2, 1962, which was granted on March 14, 1962. The Petition: Petitioners (Mrs. Cabatit and the Esquivels) sought review by certiorari of the CAR decision and the writ of execution, arguing the decision was not yet final and executory. They claimed their motion for reconsideration, filed on October 24, 1961, after engaging new counsel, had not been acted upon.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was properly served, and consequently, whether it interrupted the running of the period to appeal, thereby preventing the decision from becoming final and executory.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and the order of execution, dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction. The Court held that the decision had become final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners' appeal, affirming the validity of the order of execution. The Court held that the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was not properly served upon the adverse party. The records clearly indicated that a copy of the motion was sent to an "Atty. Amado Evangelista" as the supposed counsel for respondent Basilio Fernandez, whereas Atty. Rodrigo V. Fontelera was the true counsel of record. Under Rule 26, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, proper service of a motion upon the adverse party is a mandatory requirement for the motion to be entertained by the court. Failure to comply with this fundamental procedural rule renders the motion for reconsideration non-existent in the eyes of the law. Citing established jurisprudence, including Manakil vs. Revilla, Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa vs. Municipality of Unisan, Director of Lands vs. Sanz, and Philippine National Bank vs. Santos Donasco, the Court emphasized that a motion considered non-existent cannot have the effect of interrupting the running of the period to appeal from the decision. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations had become final and executory, validating the subsequent order for its execution.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that fails to comply with the rules on service of process is considered non-existent and does not interrupt the period for appeal, rendering the decision final and executory.