Bacelonia v. Bolos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a vehicular accident on February 3, 1993, along Aurora Boulevard in Quezon City. The accident involved a tamaraw-type school shuttle service vehicle and a 6x6 Isuzu cargo truck. Jemelee Bolos, a passenger in the school shuttle, tragically died as a result of the collision. The private respondents, parents of the deceased, filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners, who were the owners/operators and driver of the school shuttle, and against the owner and driver of the cargo truck. Procedural History: The private respondents filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners and others before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Prior to this, the petitioners had filed their own complaint for damages arising from the same accident against the owner and driver of the cargo truck, which was settled via a compromise agreement and subsequently dismissed. In the current damages case, the petitioners sought to be dropped as defendants, arguing that the prior compromise agreement implied sole responsibility by the other defendants. The RTC denied this motion. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied by the RTC before its scheduled hearing. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition as premature and without merit. The CA's resolution denying a motion for reconsideration led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their petition for certiorari. They contend that the CA exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing their petition, which raised the issue of a violation of their right to due process by the RTC. The petitioners argue that the RTC improperly denied their motion for reconsideration without affording them the scheduled hearing. The Supreme Court noted that the petition, while styled as a Rule 45 petition, primarily addressed errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, issues typically raised under Rule 65. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to rule on the merits, finding that the CA correctly dismissed the petition because the RTC did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration, as the motion itself was filed beyond the mandatory period prescribed by the rules and the petitioners had opportunities to be heard.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Whether the trial court committed a violation of due process in denying the motion for reconsideration prior to its scheduled hearing. Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was pro forma. Whether res judicata applies to the case.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court noted that the petition was denominated as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, but its discussion focused on grave abuse of discretion, which is cognizable under a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. It emphasized that Rule 45 is limited to questions of law or errors of judgment, while Rule 65 addresses errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the petition for review on certiorari could be denied for being an erroneous legal recourse. However, to finally dispose of the controversy, the Court proceeded to rule on the merits, finding that the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition. On the alleged violation of due process: The Court held that the petitioners could not validly invoke a violation of due process. The trial court had denied their motion to cancel the hearing scheduled for February 3, 2000, and directed them to argue their motion for reconsideration on that date. The petitioners were present during the hearing on February 3, 2000, but chose to ignore the court's directive to argue their motion for reconsideration. The Court stated that the denial of the opportunity to be heard is violative of due process, but in this case, the petitioners were afforded ample opportunity to explain their side, which they failed to avail themselves of. Thus, they had only themselves to blame for not being heard. On the pro forma nature of the motion for reconsideration: The Court found that the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners on January 31, 2000, was pro forma. According to Rule 15, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court, a notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and specify a time and date for hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. The petitioners set their hearing for February 15, 2000, which was beyond the mandatory ten-day period (i.e., beyond February 10, 2000). The mandatory term "must" in the rule indicates that a motion failing to comply is pro forma and presents no question meriting the court's attention. On the applicability of res judicata and the compromise agreement: The Court reiterated that the compromise agreement entered into by the petitioners and their co-defendants in Civil Case No. Q-95-23169 did not bind the complainants (private respondents) in Civil Case No. Q-98-33149, as the latter were not parties to that agreement. Therefore, the petitioners could not use this compromise agreement to seek exclusion from the ongoing case. The Court also noted that the petitioners' motion to be dropped as defendants was filed at a stage when the private respondents were already winding up the presentation of their evidence, suggesting dilatory tactics.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that fails to comply with the mandatory ten-day period for hearing under Rule 15, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court is considered pro forma and presents no question meriting the court's attention. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to correct errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion, while a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law or errors of judgment.