Ti v. Diño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a resolution by the City Prosecutor recommending the filing of an Information against petitioner Bernice Joan Ti and Julieta Fernandez for falsification of public documents. Following a motion for reconsideration and a reinvestigation, the initial resolution was reversed, leading to a motion to withdraw the Information, which was granted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Subsequently, the respondent, through a private prosecutor, filed a motion for reconsideration of the MeTC's order to withdraw the Information. The MeTC granted this motion, finding probable cause to indict petitioner and Fernandez. Procedural History: Petitioner and Fernandez filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking to enjoin the MeTC, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The RTC ruled in their favor, finding that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion by reviving the case based on a private prosecutor's motion for reconsideration without the public prosecutor's concurrence. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied due to a violation of the 3-day notice rule for motions. The respondent then filed a Notice of Appeal, but the RTC disapproved it for being filed out of time. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC's order disapproving the appeal. The CA granted the petition, reversed the RTC's order, and gave due course to the notice of appeal. The petitioner sought reconsideration, which the CA denied. The Petition: Petitioner Bernice Joan Ti filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. Petitioner argues that the respondent's petition for certiorari with the CA was premature, as a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's denial should have been filed first. Petitioner also contends that the respondent violated the 3-day notice rule when filing his motion for reconsideration with the RTC, and that personal service should have been used given the proximity of the counsels' offices. The core issue before the Supreme Court is whether the Rules of Court should be interpreted liberally under these circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the respondent's notice of appeal despite the alleged violation of the 3-day notice rule by the respondent. Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the respondent's notice of appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition for Review on Certiorari, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and AFFIRMED and REINSTATED the Order dated May 20, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City. The RTC's disapproval of the respondent's notice of appeal was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' error in giving due course to the notice of appeal: The Supreme Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the respondent's notice of appeal. The RTC correctly ruled that the respondent's motion for reconsideration was fatally defective due to the violation of the mandatory 3-day notice rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. This defective motion did not toll the reglementary period to appeal. The Court emphasized that the requirement to ensure receipt of the notice of hearing at least three days before the hearing is for the party filing the motion, and failure to comply renders the motion a mere scrap of paper. The respondent's reliance on registered mail, without a written explanation why personal service was not practicable, was insufficient. Personal service was deemed practicable given the proximity of the counsels' offices within the National Capital Region. The Court reiterated that procedural rules are designed to facilitate adjudication and should be followed, and liberal interpretation is only for justifiable causes, not to allow parties to violate rules with impunity. On the issue of the Regional Trial Court's grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found that the RTC acted correctly in disapproving the notice of appeal. The RTC's finding that the respondent's motion for reconsideration was defective due to the violation of the 3-day notice rule was supported by the records. The motion was set for hearing on April 16, 2010, but the petitioner's counsel only received a copy on April 19, 2010, which was three days after the hearing. This failure to comply with the mandatory notice period meant the motion did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal. Consequently, the decision of the RTC became final on May 5, 2010, and the subsequent notice of appeal filed on February 24, 2011, was indeed filed out of time. The CA's reversal of the RTC's order was therefore erroneous.
Main Doctrine
Failure to comply with the mandatory 3-day notice rule in filing a motion for reconsideration renders the motion fatally defective, preventing it from tolling the reglementary period to appeal. Personal service is preferred when practicable, and resort to other modes requires a written explanation.