Firme v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In Civil Case No. 62906, the Court of First Instance of Manila declared Arsenio Reyes the owner of a lot and house and ordered spouses Librada N. Firme and Doctor Florencio Firme to pay rentals and attorney's fees. The Firme spouses received the decision on March 27, 1971. Procedural History: On April 13, 1971, the Firme spouses filed a motion for reconsideration without a notice of hearing. Arsenio Reyes moved for the execution of the judgment, arguing the motion for reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper. The trial court granted Reyes' motion on June 28, 1971, ordering the motion for reconsideration stricken from the record and a writ of execution issued. A motion for reconsideration of this order was denied on August 30, 1971, citing jurisprudence that a motion without proper notice of hearing does not interrupt the reglementary period for appeal. A writ of execution was issued on October 7, 1972. The Petition: On November 23, 1972, the Firme spouses filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the trial court's orders and compel action on their motion for reconsideration. Crucially, they failed to disclose that they had previously filed a similar petition in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-00530), which was dismissed for lack of merit on November 11, 1971, and from which they did not appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Firme spouses' motion for reconsideration, lacking a notice of hearing, was a mere scrap of paper that did not interrupt the reglementary period for appeal. Whether the trial court's judgment had become executory. Whether the petition was barred by res judicata.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, holding that the judgment had become executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the motion for reconsideration and the interruption of the reglementary period: The Court reiterated the established rule that a motion for reconsideration, to be valid and to interrupt the reglementary period for appeal, must comply with the Rules of Court, particularly regarding the requirement of a notice of hearing. Section 2 of Rule 37, read in conjunction with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15, mandates that a motion must contain a written notice stating the time and place for the hearing thereof. Without proof of service of such notice, the court cannot act on the motion, except in limited circumstances not present here. The Court cited numerous precedents, including Manakil and Tison vs. Revilla and Tuano, which held that a motion without a notice of hearing is a mere piece of paper that the court has no right to consider. Therefore, the Firme spouses' motion for reconsideration, lacking this essential requirement, did not suspend the period for perfecting an appeal. On the executory nature of the judgment: Since the motion for reconsideration was deemed a mere scrap of paper, it did not interrupt the thirty-day reglementary period for filing an appeal. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court became final and executory after the lapse of the period to appeal, which commenced from the receipt of the decision on March 27, 1971. The trial court was therefore correct in treating the judgment as executory and in issuing the writ of execution. On the issue of res judicata: The Court noted that the Firme spouses had previously filed a similar petition in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on the merits. They failed to appeal that dismissal. By filing a new petition in the Supreme Court assailing the same orders without disclosing the prior dismissal, they engaged in forum shopping and attempted to relitigate a matter already decided. This prior dismissal and the failure to appeal it rendered the matter res judicata, barring further review. The Court stated that had this fact been disclosed, the petition would not have been entertained. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to rule on the merits in the interest of justice.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that lacks a notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not interrupt the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal, rendering the judgment executory.