Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Expedita L. Aquino leased a commercial building to establish a computer gaming business and had the electrical service restored. She paid the reconnection fee and the initial electric consumption bill in the name of the former tenant, Mrs. Paglinawan. However, respondent failed to pay subsequent electric bills. Petitioner Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CASURECO IV) inspected the premises, alleged pilferage of electricity, and presented respondent with options to pay a differential billing and penalty or face disconnection. Respondent refused, asserting it would be an admission of guilt, leading to the permanent disconnection of her electrical service. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for damages against CASURECO IV in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging business interruption and financial losses due to the disconnection. CASURECO IV moved to dismiss, arguing no contract existed. The RTC initially denied the motion but later granted it, ruling that respondent's payment in Mrs. Paglinawan's name did not establish a new contract. Respondent moved for reconsideration, but her motion was denied by the RTC for lack of merit. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing her complaint stated a cause of action. CASURECO IV countered that the appeal was filed late due to respondent's non-compliance with the 3-day rule for her motion for reconsideration in the RTC. The CA reversed the RTC's dismissal, holding that a cause of action existed, but did not rule on the timeliness of the appeal. CASURECO IV's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner CASURECO IV seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The petition raises two main issues: (1) whether respondent's complaint for damages stated a cause of action against petitioner, and (2) whether respondent's appeal to the CA was filed on time. Petitioner argues that respondent's motion for reconsideration in the RTC was fatally flawed for violating the 3-day rule for notice of hearing, thus failing to toll the reglementary period for appeal. Petitioner contends that the CA erred in not dismissing the appeal outright as it was filed beyond the prescribed period, rendering the RTC decision final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's complaint for damages sufficiently stated a cause of action against the petitioner. Whether the respondent's appeal to the Court of Appeals was filed within the reglementary period, considering the procedural defects of her Motion for Reconsideration in the trial court.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 81666 is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent's complaint did state a cause of action. A cause of action requires a legal right of the plaintiff, a correlative obligation of the defendant, and an act or omission in violation of that right. The Court emphasized that in determining the sufficiency of a cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint are considered. Applying the test from Ilano v. Espanol, the Court found that the respondent's possession of the property and the subsequent injury from disconnection were sufficient ultimate facts. Crucially, the Court ruled that participation in a contract is not a mandatory element of a cause of action, as even third parties can sue for violations of legal rights. Therefore, the CA was correct in stating that the existence of a contract was a matter of defense to be resolved during a trial on the merits. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was filed out of time because the respondent's Motion for Reconsideration was a 'mere scrap of paper.' Under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, a notice of hearing must be served to ensure receipt by the other party at least three days before the hearing date. The respondent mailed the notice from Naga City on January 5 for a hearing on January 9 in Manila, making it impossible for the petitioner's counsel to receive it three days prior. Citing Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, the Court reiterated that non-compliance with this rule is a fatal defect. Because the motion was procedurally void, it did not toll the 15-day period to appeal the RTC's December 22, 2003 order. The Court further clarified that the RTC's act of taking cognizance of the motion or denying it on the merits did not cure the defect. Consequently, the RTC decision had already become final and executory when the notice of appeal was filed 44 days after the respondent received the dismissal order.
Main Doctrine
The 'Scrap of Paper' doctrine dictates that a motion failing to comply with the mandatory 3-day notice rule under Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court has no legal effect. It does not suspend the running of the period to appeal. The fact that a trial court may have acted upon the motion by setting it for hearing or denying it on the merits does not validate the motion or cure the inherent procedural defect. Consequently, an appeal filed after the original period has lapsed, relying on the tolling effect of such a defective motion, must be dismissed for being filed out of time.