Tan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Annie Tan, doing business as "AJ & T Trading," leased a commercial space to private respondent Bloomberry Export Manufacturing, Inc. for a five-year term. Alleging violations of the lease agreement, Tan filed an ejectment case against Bloomberry. Concurrently, Bloomberry filed a case for consignation after its rental payments were refused by Tan. The two cases were consolidated. 2. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) dismissed Tan's ejectment complaint for failure to substantiate her case and declared Bloomberry's consignation case moot and academic, allowing continued consignation of rentals. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC's decision in its entirety. Tan then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC, which lacked the required notice of hearing. Bloomberry filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment, arguing the motion for reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper and did not toll the appeal period. The RTC initially granted Tan's subsequent motion to set her reconsideration motion for hearing, but later denied Bloomberry's motion for reconsideration of that order. Bloomberry then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted Bloomberry's petition, setting aside the RTC's order and declaring the July 18, 1996 RTC decision final and executory, ruling that Tan's motion for reconsideration, lacking a notice of hearing, was a fatal defect that did not suspend the period to appeal. Tan now seeks to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the omission of the notice of hearing was an inadvertent mistake and that a rigid application of the rule would result in a miscarriage of justice. She contends that the defect is not fatal and that the rules should be liberally construed in her favor.
Issue(s)
Whether the omission of a notice of hearing in a motion for reconsideration is a fatal defect that prevents the tolling of the period to appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, considering the alleged excuses for the omission and the plea for liberal construction.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the omission of a notice of hearing in a motion for reconsideration: The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, which require every written motion to be set for hearing and served with notice thereof to all parties concerned. Numerous Supreme Court decisions, 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, have consistently held that a motion for reconsideration lacking a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper, fatally defective, and does not toll the running of the period to appeal. Such a motion is considered pro forma and does not interrupt the prescriptive period for filing an appeal, rendering the decision final and executory. On the alleged excuses for the omission and the plea for liberal construction: The Court rejected petitioner's excuses for the missing notice of hearing. The claim that a messenger inadvertently omitted the page was dismissed, as the burden of preparing a complete pleading rests on counsel, who is ultimately responsible for the acts of his agents. Furthermore, the Court found it incredible that a page was omitted, as the motion itself ended with a "copy-furnished" notation, indicating no fourth page containing a notice of hearing was ever included. The subsequent filing of a motion to set the motion for hearing, after the opposing party filed a motion for entry of judgment, further belied the claim of accidental omission. The Court found no basis for petitioner's plea for liberal construction of the rules, citing Tamargo, Galvez, and Que as inapplicable to the present case due to factual distinctions. The Court also rejected the argument that a rigid application of the rule would result in a miscarriage of justice or deprivation of property without due process. The Court clarified that petitioner could still pursue payment of unpaid rentals through a motion for execution in the original case. The Court emphasized that failing to observe elementary and mandatory procedural rules leads to one's own predicament and that undermining the stability of the judicial process by allowing deviations from the Rules would create "irritating uncertainties."
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that does not contain the requisite notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not toll the running of the period for appeal, as compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is essential.