Sembrano v. Ramirez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a civil case filed by Northern Motors, Inc. against Carlito V. Sembrano for the payment of the unpaid price of a car. The trial court, after dismissing the complaint, ordered Northern Motors, Inc. to repair the car's alternator within thirty days. Following the repair, Sembrano was to resume payments on the outstanding balance. The court's decision was issued on August 30, 1976. Procedural History: Northern Motors, Inc. received the decision on September 7, 1976. On the last day to appeal, October 7, 1976, it filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the respondent court on the same date for lack of merit and non-compliance with notice and hearing rules. Northern Motors, Inc. received the denial order on October 20, 1976. Subsequently, it filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a motion for extension to file the record on appeal. The petitioner opposed these filings, arguing that the appeal period had already prescribed. Despite the opposition, the respondent judge approved the record on appeal and denied the motion to dismiss on December 6, 1976. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this order was denied on January 7, 1977, leading to the present petition. The Petition: This case is a special civil action for certiorari filed by Carlito V. Sembrano. The petitioner assails the respondent judge's order approving Northern Motors, Inc.'s appeal as a grave abuse of discretion. The core argument is that the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period because the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Northern Motors, Inc. was fatally defective, lacking proper notice of hearing and proof of service. Consequently, the motion did not toll the period to appeal, and the decision had become final and executory. The petitioner contends that the respondent judge erred in giving due course to the appeal, thereby violating established rules and jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the private respondent's appeal despite its alleged late perfection. Whether a motion for reconsideration, filed without notice of hearing and proof of service, tolls the reglementary period for appeal.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The Orders of the respondent court dated December 6, 1976 and January 7, 1977 are SET ASIDE. The Decision of the respondent court in Civil Case No. 95566 dated August 30, 1976 is declared FINAL and EXECUTORY.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the private respondent's appeal despite its alleged late perfection: The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. The private respondent failed to file its notice of appeal seasonably. The motion for reconsideration filed on the last day of the appeal period was fatally defective because it lacked proof of service and a notice of hearing. Such a motion is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not toll the running of the period to appeal. Consequently, the decision became final and executory, and the appellate court lost jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The liberality exhibited by the judge in approving the appeal was misplaced, as the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. On whether a motion for reconsideration, filed without notice of hearing and proof of service, tolls the reglementary period for appeal: The Supreme Court held that a motion for reconsideration without a notice of hearing and proof of service is a mere scrap of paper and does not suspend the running of the period to appeal. The rules explicitly require that notice of a motion shall be served on all parties concerned at least three days before the hearing, stating the time and place thereof. This requirement is mandatory and failure to comply is fatal to the movant's cause. The three-day notice is intended to prevent surprise and give the adverse party time to study and meet the arguments. Without such notice, the motion is pro forma and does not toll the period for appeal. This principle applies equally to a motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that lacks a notice of hearing and proof of service is considered a mere scrap of paper, does not toll the reglementary period for appeal, and renders the decision final and executory. A judge commits grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to an appeal perfected beyond the reglementary period.