Palileo v. Planters Development Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint for specific performance and/or sum of money with damages filed by George Philip P. Palileo and Jose L. Dela Cruz against Planters Development Bank (PDB) and others. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, Branch 37, rendered a decision on June 15, 2006, ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs substantial actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. The RTC found that the defendants, including PDB, failed to appear for pre-trial and subsequent hearings, leading to the presentation of evidence ex-parte by the plaintiffs. Procedural History: Planters Development Bank received the RTC Decision on July 17, 2006. On July 31, 2006, PDB filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial via private courier (LBC), which was received by the court on the same day. PDB also sent a copy to the petitioners via LBC, but there was no LBC service at the petitioners' address. PDB subsequently filed another copy of the motion via registered mail on August 2, 2006, and simultaneously sent a copy to the petitioners by registered mail. Meanwhile, the petitioners moved for execution pending appeal. On August 30, 2006, the RTC denied PDB's omnibus motion for being procedurally defective for failing to comply with the notice of hearing requirement under Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, and granted the motion for execution, treating it as a motion for execution of a final and executory judgment. PDB received this order on September 14, 2006. A Writ of Execution was issued on August 31, 2006. PDB filed a motion to quash the writ, which was denied by the RTC on October 6, 2006. The RTC issued a second Writ of Execution on October 9, 2006. PDB filed a Notice of Appeal on September 7, 2006. The Petition: Planters Development Bank filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's August 30, 2006 Order denying its omnibus motion, its October 6, 2006 Order denying the motion to quash, and the writs of execution. The CA initially dismissed PDB's petition, upholding the RTC's finding that the omnibus motion was pro forma. However, in an Amended Decision, the CA reversed its ruling, granting PDB's petition and quashing the writ of execution, holding that the Rules of Court should be liberally construed given the circumstances and that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners, George Philip P. Palileo and Jose de la Cruz, filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Amended Decision and Resolution. They argue that the RTC Decision had become final and executory due to PDB's failure to file its motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal within the reglementary period, and that the CA erred in allowing certiorari as a remedy and in relaxing the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its original decision and granting PDB's petition for certiorari. Whether the RTC's June 15, 2006 Decision had become final and executory. Whether PDB's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial was timely filed and procedurally valid. Whether PDB's Notice of Appeal was timely filed. Whether certiorari was the proper remedy for PDB.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed and set aside the assailed Amended Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the Regional Trial Court to proceed with the execution of its June 15, 2006 Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the CA's Amended Decision: The Court concluded that the CA erred in reversing its original decision and in liberalizing the application of the Rules of Court in favor of PDB. The Court emphasized that PDB made multiple procedural errors, including failing to appear at pre-trial, filing a late motion for reconsideration, and filing a tardy notice of appeal. The Court found no basis for the CA's conclusion of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, as the RTC acted regularly in denying the defective and late motions. On the finality of the RTC Decision: The Court held that PDB's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial was filed one day late. PDB received the RTC Decision on July 17, 2006, giving it 15 days, or until August 1, 2006, to file its motion or notice of appeal. However, the omnibus motion was filed on August 2, 2006. This tardiness meant that the 15-day period for appeal had already expired without PDB filing the requisite notice of appeal. Consequently, the RTC's June 15, 2006 Decision became final and executory. On the procedural validity of PDB's Omnibus Motion: The Court found that PDB's initial filing of the omnibus motion via LBC courier on July 31, 2006, was improper because LBC service was unavailable at the petitioners' address. Its subsequent re-filing via registered mail on August 2, 2006, was beyond the reglementary period. Furthermore, even if the motion were considered timely, it violated Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court by failing to set the hearing within ten days from its filing. Such non-compliance renders a motion pro forma, meaning it presents no question that the court must decide upon and does not toll the running of the reglementary period. On the timeliness of PDB's Notice of Appeal: The Court reiterated that PDB's Notice of Appeal, filed on September 7, 2006, was also tardy. The deadline for filing the notice of appeal was August 1, 2006, counting from PDB's receipt of the RTC Decision on July 17, 2006. Since the appeal period had lapsed, PDB lost its right to appeal. On the propriety of the Certiorari Petition: The Court found that PDB's resort to a Petition for Certiorari to assail the RTC's denial of its omnibus motion was improper. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss is due to the party's own negligence or error in choosing the remedy. PDB's failure to properly pursue its appeal led to the loss of its right to question the RTC's decision.
Main Doctrine
A motion that fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, particularly the ten-day period for notice of hearing, is considered pro forma and does not toll the reglementary period for filing an appeal or motion for reconsideration, rendering the judgment final and executory.