Azarias v. Maddela
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the estate of the deceased Mamerto Azarias. Mamerto Azarias, Jr. filed a petition seeking to be appointed administrator of the estate and to be recognized as an acknowledged natural child of the deceased. Lucila B. vda. de Azarias, the petitioner, opposed this petition. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Quezon, presided over by respondent Judge Manolo L. Maddela, initially appointed petitioner Lucila B. vda. de Azarias as administratrix of the estate and declared Mamerto Azarias, Jr. as the natural child and heir. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this decision was denied for lacking the required notice of hearing. Subsequently, the respondent Judge granted the private respondent's motion for execution of the decision and disapproved the petitioner's appeal bond and record on appeal, deeming the decision final. The petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the approval of her appeal, which was dismissed. This dismissal led to the current petition. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for certiorari seeking to review the resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner argues that the lower court erred in dismissing her motion for reconsideration due to the lack of a formal notice of hearing, contending that substantial compliance was met by serving copies of the motion. The core issue is whether a motion for reconsideration, lacking a notice of hearing but served on the adverse party, is valid and tolls the period for appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a motion for reconsideration that fails to include a notice of hearing (stating the time and place) satisfies the requirements of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court and effectively tolls the period for appeal.
Ruling
The resolution of the Court of Appeals dated March 14, 1966, is affirmed. The petition is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that a motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court is a 'worthless piece of paper' which the clerk has no right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon. Applying the long-standing doctrine in Manakil v. Revilla and reaffirmed in PNB v. Donasco, the Court emphasized that without a notice setting the time and place of hearing, the court would have no way to determine whether a party agrees or objects to the motion. The Court dismissed the petitioner's 'embarrassment' argument as a mere afterthought to conceal the negligence of counsel. It also distinguished the case from Inesin v. Canonoy, noting that while Inesin involved rare and non-continuous court sessions that justified an omission, the respondent Judge in the present case was holding regular sessions in Polillo, Quezon. Furthermore, the Court clarified that even if a copy was served to the adverse party, as in Sun Un Giok v. Matusa, that case involved a notice addressed to the clerk which still allowed for a hearing, whereas the petitioner here provided no notice at all. Finally, the Court cited Magno v. Ortiz to reiterate that the duty to give notice of hearing devolves upon the movant, and a court's motu proprio act of setting a hearing cannot cure a motion that failed to toll the appeal period, as the judgment would have already become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that fails to comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, specifically the inclusion of a notice of hearing, is considered a worthless piece of paper and cannot be acted upon by the court, nor does it toll the period for appeal.