De la Peña v. De la Peña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint was filed by Pedro R. de la Peña and others against Purita de la Peña, seeking the annulment of a deed of sale and a deed of extrajudicial partition, the partition of estates belonging to Fortunata de la Peña and Gavina de la Peña, and damages. Petitioner Purita de la Peña subsequently filed an answer with a counterclaim for the annulment of an extrajudicial settlement. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, initially granted a motion for a bill of particulars. Partial compromise agreements were reached regarding a specific lot. On June 28, 1993, the trial court dismissed both the plaintiffs' complaint and the defendant's counterclaim. The plaintiffs received this decision on July 2, 1993, and filed a motion for reconsideration on July 15, 1993. The trial court denied this motion on August 11, 1993, finding it pro forma due to a lack of a notice of hearing. Consequently, the plaintiffs' notice of appeal filed on August 20, 1993, was also denied by the trial court on September 29, 1993, as it was deemed out of time. The Court of Appeals, however, declared the trial court's order deeming the motion for reconsideration pro forma as null and void on May 25, 1994, and subsequently denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on July 29, 1994. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to overturn the Court of Appeals' rulings. The petitioner argues that the respondents' motion for reconsideration, lacking a notice of hearing, was pro forma and therefore did not toll the prescriptive period for filing an appeal. The petitioner relies on established jurisprudence holding that a motion without a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper, rendering any subsequent appeal filed out of time. The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in considering the appeal timely filed and asks this Court to reinstate the trial court's order which dismissed the case due to the lapsed period to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs, lacking a notice of hearing, was pro forma. Whether the pro forma motion for reconsideration tolled the running of the prescriptive period for filing an appeal. Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated May 25, 1994, and July 29, 1994, are SET ASIDE. The assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court declaring the motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent as pro forma is REINSTATED. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the complaint as well as the counterclaim has acquired FINALITY.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs was pro forma. It reiterated the mandatory nature of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, which require a notice of hearing stating the time and place for the motion's resolution. A motion that fails to meet these requirements is considered a "worthless piece of paper" or a "scrap of paper" which the clerk has no right to receive and the court has no authority to act upon. The absence of a notice of hearing renders the motion fatally defective. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that a pro forma motion for reconsideration does not toll the running of the prescriptive period for filing an appeal. Citing established jurisprudence, including Pojas v. Gozo-Dadole, New Japan Motors, Inc. v. Perucho, Sembrano v. Ramirez, In re Almacen, and Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Bath Construction and Company, the Court emphasized that the requirement of a notice of hearing is mandatory. Failure to comply with this requirement means the motion does not suspend the period to appeal, and the judgment sought to be reconsidered becomes final. On Issue 3: Consequently, the notice of appeal filed by the plaintiffs was deemed filed out of time. The plaintiffs received the decision on July 2, 1993. Their period to appeal was until July 17, 1993. However, they filed their Notice of Appeal and/or Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal on August 20, 1993, which was 49 days after receipt of the decision. By this time, the decision had already attained finality 34 days earlier, rendering the filing of the appeal a futile exercise.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, specifically the inclusion of a notice of hearing, is considered pro forma and does not toll the running of the prescriptive period for filing an appeal.