Magno v. Ortiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In Civil Case No. 410, a judgment was rendered on October 31, 1963, declaring Rogaciano Suazo as owner of Lot No. 2987. Gualberto V. Magno, an intervenor claiming the land as a purchaser, received a copy of the judgment on December 12, 1963. On January 11, 1964, within the thirtieth day from receipt, Magno filed a motion for reconsideration by registered mail, which did not include a notice of hearing. Procedural History: On January 27, 1964, the respondent Judge motu proprio issued a notice setting Magno's motion for reconsideration for hearing on February 8, 1964. On the same day, Rogaciano Suazo moved for the execution of the judgment, asserting it had become final and executory. Both motions were heard. On March 9, 1964, the respondent Judge issued an order denying Magno's motion for reconsideration and allowing the issuance of a writ of execution. Magno received this order on March 17, 1964, and subsequently filed a notice of appeal, cash appeal bond, and record on appeal. On March 18, 1964, Magno moved to reconsider the portion of the order allowing execution, which was denied on March 31, 1964. The Petition: Magno filed a petition for certiorari, alleging that the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in declaring the decision final and unappealable, disregarding his motion for reconsideration, ordering execution, and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. He prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction, annulment of the orders, and mandamus to compel the judge to consider and approve his record on appeal. A preliminary injunction was issued.
Issue(s)
Whether a motion for reconsideration filed without a notice of hearing, but for which the court subsequently issued a notice of hearing, suspends the period for appeal. Whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the preliminary injunction is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration filed without a notice of hearing suspends the period for appeal: The Supreme Court held that a motion for reconsideration without a notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not suspend the period for appeal. The Court emphasized that the duty to provide notice of hearing rests upon the movant, not the court. Citing Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction Co., et al. and Fulton Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co., et al., the Court reiterated that Section 2 of Rule 37, in relation to Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15, requires a written notice of a motion for new trial (which the motion for reconsideration was deemed to be) to be served by the movant on the adverse party, stating the time and place of the hearing. Without proof of service of this notice, the motion cannot be acted upon by the court. The Court distinguished the present case from Inesin, et al. vs. Canonoy, et al., noting the absence of special circumstances that justified a liberal interpretation in that case. The Court further clarified that even if the respondent Judge had the authority to issue a notice of hearing motu proprio, it did not cure the defect because the decision had already become final and executory by the time the notice of hearing was issued, sixteen days after the motion was filed. The defective motion for reconsideration did not toll the running of the period for appeal. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: Based on the foregoing determination that the motion for reconsideration was defective and did not suspend the period for appeal, the Court found that the respondent Judge did not act in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in declaring the decision final and executory and in ordering the issuance of a writ of execution. The procedural defect in the motion for reconsideration rendered it ineffective in preserving the intervenor's right to appeal.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that does not contain a notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not toll the period for appeal, even if the court subsequently issues a notice of hearing for it. The duty to provide notice of hearing rests with the movant, not the court.