Casalla v. People
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Lamberto Casalla issued two checks from his wife's account to settle an obligation owed by his wife to Milagros Santos-Estevanes. These checks were dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds. Consequently, two criminal complaints were filed against the petitioner for violating the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22). 2. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasig City convicted the petitioner on both counts. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this conviction, with a modification regarding subsidiary imprisonment. The petitioner's subsequent motions for reconsideration, including a second one, were denied by the RTC, which also granted the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. The petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal for lack of merit, also noting that the petition lacked a statement of material dates and was filed out of time due to a defective motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision via certiorari under Rule 45. He argues that the requirement for a notice of hearing does not apply to his motion for reconsideration before the RTC, as the RTC was acting in its appellate capacity. He also contends that the RTC lacked the authority to issue the writ of execution. The Supreme Court, however, found that the motion for reconsideration was pro forma due to the absence of a notice of hearing, thus not tolling the prescriptive period. Furthermore, the Court noted that the proper remedy to assail the RTC's order of execution was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 45.
Issue(s)
Whether the requirement of a notice of hearing applies to a motion for reconsideration filed before a Regional Trial Court acting in its appellate jurisdiction. Whether the Regional Trial Court has the authority to issue a writ of execution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the RTC did not err in denying the petition for review and that the CA did not err in denying the petition for review filed before it.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of a notice of hearing: The Court reiterated that the requirements laid down in the Rules of Court regarding the notice of hearing for a motion for reconsideration are mandatory. Failure to comply renders the motion pro forma, meaning it is a useless piece of paper that does not toll the running of the prescriptive period for appeal. The undisputed fact that the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner with the RTC did not contain any notice of hearing made it pro forma. This defect was not cured by the filing of a second motion for reconsideration, which is prohibited under the rules. The argument that the RTC, acting in its appellate jurisdiction, was not bound by the notice of hearing requirement was rejected, as the Rules of Court apply to all courts unless otherwise provided. On the authority to issue a writ of execution: The Court found that petitioner's recourse to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 45 to assail the RTC's issuance of a writ of execution was improper. The proper remedy, according to the Rules, is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as no appeal may be taken from an order of execution. Therefore, the appellate court did not err in denying the petition for review.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that fails to comply with the mandatory requirement of a notice of hearing is considered pro forma, rendering it a useless piece of paper that does not toll the reglementary period for filing an appeal. Furthermore, a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order is prohibited.