ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139023. August 30, 1999]

MARIA LABTIK, et al. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated AUG. 30, 1999.

G.R. No. 139023 (Maria Labtik joined by her husband Augusto Labtik vs. Court of Appeals, Julia Corpin and Emmanuel Caroscos.)

As a result of a vehicular accident which occurred on June 6, 1983 at Brgy. Himarco, Tabango, Leyte, which involved a Toyota land Cruiser owned by petitioner Maria Labtik and driven by her son Octavius Labtik and a Ford Fierra Jitney owned by respondent Julia Corpin and driven by Emmanuel Caroscos, a civil action for damages with Preliminary Attachment was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Leyte, Branch 16, Naval, Leyte. This was docketed as Civil Case No. B-0526. Thereafter, this was ordered consolidated with Criminal Case No. P-0009 entitled People vs. Emmanuel Caroscos for Damage to Property with Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence which was then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte.

After the records of Civil Case No. B-0526 were transmitted to the Regional Trial Court of Polompon, Leyte, the same was docketed as Civil Case No. PN-0081. After a joint trial of Criminal Case No. P-0009 and Civil Case No. PN-0081, the court a quo rendered a consolidated decision on October 10, 1988 in favor of private respondent Caroscos and against herein petitioners.1 [Rollo, p. 65.]

On January 10, 1989, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision dated October 10, 1988. The motion did not contain a notice of hearing and a copy thereof was not served upon the adverse party. On March 6, 1989, private respondent, as prevailing party, filed a Motion to Execute Judgment. On account of the latter motion, the court a quo ordered herein private respondent to inform the court if they were furnished with a copy of the motion for reconsideration filed by herein petitioners and if so, to file their comment thereon within ten (10) days from receipt of the order. Private respondent did not file their comment allegedly because they had not been furnished a copy of the said motion for reconsideration. The court a quo, nonetheless, set the hearing of the motion for reconsideration and required to comment thereon within ten (10) days.

On November 23, 1989, the court a quo rendered another decision dismissing both the complaint and the counterclaim and, in effect, superseded its previous decision dated October 10, 1998.

Private respondents went to the Court of Appeals on appeal on December 26, 1989 and this was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 25439. On March 4, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, 2 [Rollo, p. 26.] setting aside the RTC's decision of November 23, 1989 and reinstating its prior decision dated October 10, 1988. The appellate court held that petitioner's motion for reconsideration dated January 10, 1989 was a mere scrap of paper as it had no notice of hearing and there was no proof of service of the motion on private respondent; hence, the motion did not suspend the prescribed period for appeal, resulting in the finality of the October 10, 1988 decision.

A motion for reconsideration was filed but this was denied. Hence, this petition.

We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court require that a notice shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and any affidavits and other papers accompanying it. Section 5 thereof requires that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion and Section 6 expressly states that no motion shall be acted upon by the court, without proof of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or parties are not affected.

In De la Pe�a vs. De la Pe�a, 3 [258 SCRA 298 [1996]. See also: Pojas vs. Goza-Dadole, 192 SCRA 575 [1990]; Sembrano vs. Ramirez, 166 SCRA 30 [1988]; New Japan Motors, Inc. vs. Perucho, 74 SCRA 14 [1976]; In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 [1970].] we ruled that the requirements laid down in Sec. 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion, are mandatory. If not religiously complied with, they render the motion pro forma. As such, the motion is a useless piece of paper that will not toll the running of the prescriptive period.

In the case at bar, when petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on January 10, 1989, they failed to furnish the private respondents and their counsel with a copy of the motion. Thus, the trial court should have disregarded it for being merely a scrap of paper. It did not toll the running of the prescriptive period for filing a motion for reconsideration, thus, the decision of the trial court became final and executory.

Moreover, we agree with the Court of Appeals that since the motion for reconsideration did not contain a notice of the time, date and place of the hearing and the notice of hearing of the motion for reconsideration was addressed to the Clerk of Court and not to the parties and that it merely stated that the same is submitted for resolution of the court in chambers upon receipt thereof, the said notice is fatally detective.4 [Rollo, p. 25.]

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE