Fajardo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by respondent Rexie Efren A. Bugaring against petitioner Dolores Fajardo for the collection of attorney's fees. Respondent alleged that he was engaged by petitioner to represent her in various civil and criminal cases, and despite successful outcomes and subsequent demands, petitioner refused to pay the agreed-upon fees. Respondent sought payment for unpaid attorney's fees, interest, damages, and costs. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared petitioner in default for failing to appear at pre-trial and subsequently rendered a decision in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to pay a substantial sum for attorney's fees. Respondent later filed a motion for correction of the judgment. Petitioner, alleging receipt of the decision on January 19, 1998, filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 1998. The RTC denied this notice as premature due to the pending motion for correction and later issued an order granting the correction. Respondent then moved for and was granted a writ of execution. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC's orders denying her appeal, amending the decision, and issuing the writ of execution. The CA dismissed the petition, affirming the RTC's actions and ruling that the appeal was filed late based on a different receipt date. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's jurisdiction to issue amended orders and a writ of execution after the perfection of her appeal. The core of her argument is that the RTC acted without jurisdiction when it issued orders based on a motion for correction that was defective for lacking a proper notice of hearing, rendering it a mere scrap of paper. Petitioner contends that her notice of appeal, filed on February 3, 1998, was timely as it was filed within fifteen days of her counsel's receipt of the decision on January 19, 1998, thereby perfecting her appeal and divesting the RTC of further jurisdiction over the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's notice of appeal as premature due to the pendency of respondent's motion for correction of judgment. Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to amend its decision and issue a writ of execution after the perfection of the appeal. Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution are reversed and set aside. The Order dated February 3, 1998, Order dated February 13, 1998, and Resolution dated September 28, 1998, all issued by the trial court, are likewise set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for proper disposition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prematurity of the appeal and the validity of the trial court's orders: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in denying the notice of appeal as premature. The motion for correction of judgment filed by respondent was defective for lacking a proper notice of hearing, rendering it a mere scrap of paper that could not interrupt the reglementary period for appeal. The Court emphasized that a motion without a notice of hearing is pro forma and presents no question for the court to decide, violating due process. Consequently, the orders issued by the trial court based on this defective motion, including the amendment of the decision and the resolution granting the writ of execution, were issued without jurisdiction and are of no force and effect. The Court cited Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to underscore the requirement of a notice of hearing. On the perfection of appeal and tolling of finality: The Court clarified that the pendency of petitioner's appeal tolled the finality of the assailed decision. Once a notice of appeal is filed and perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, except for specific instances not present here. Therefore, the resolution of the trial court ordering the execution of the judgment was without basis because the appeal had already been perfected, divesting the trial court of its authority to act further on the merits of the case. On the timeliness of the notice of appeal: The Supreme Court found that the notice of appeal was timely filed. While a postal certification indicated receipt by someone named Gloria Fajardo on December 15, 1997, the registry return receipt showed that petitioner's counsel received a copy of the decision only on January 19, 1998. The Court reiterated the rule that service of judgment must be made upon the counsel of record, not the party himself, for purposes of computing the reglementary period for appeal. Counting from January 19, 1998, the notice of appeal filed on February 3, 1998, was well within the fifteen-day reglementary period.
Main Doctrine
A motion for correction of judgment that lacks a proper notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not interrupt the reglementary period for filing an appeal. Consequently, orders issued by the trial court based on such a defective motion are void. Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal tolls the finality of the judgment, rendering any subsequent order for execution by the trial court without basis.