G.R. No. 198531 - Acampado vs. Spouses Cosmilla

The case originated from a Petition for the Declaration of the Nullity of Document filed by respondents—Spouses Lourdes R. Cosmilla and Felimon Cosmilla (with Lorelie Cosmilla acting as attorney-in-fact of Lourdes R. Cosmilla)—against petitioners (Ethel, Emmie, Elvie, Earlyn, and Evelyn Acampado; and Katipunan M. de los Reyes).
Respondents alleged that the sale of their share in the subject property was effected through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) which they claimed was forged, rendering the sale null and void.

After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 6, rendered a Decision on March 31, 2005, dismissing the respondents’ complaint for failure to prove forgery by preponderance of evidence.
The RTC also ordered respondents to pay specific sums for transportation expenses, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses to the petitioners.

Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 6, 2005 seeking reversal of the RTC Decision.
The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated May 16, 2005 on the ground that the motion was pro forma—highlighting the non-compliance with the notice of hearing requirement stipulated in Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Dissatisfied with the RTC Order, respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, coupled with a prayer for preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order.
Initially, on October 27, 2006, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated June 28, 2007, relaxed the procedural defect and vacated the RTC Order, directing the RTC to act on the merits of the Motion for Reconsideration.
Later, in a Resolution dated August 19, 2011, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners, thus creating a conflicting procedural history.

The petitioners, aggrieved by the reversal and set-aside of the RTC’s decision by the Court of Appeals, filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
They contended that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it reconsidered its own previous dismissal of respondents’ petition—arguing that due process was violated as proper notice of hearing and service to the adverse party were not observed.

Whether a motion for reconsideration failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 of the Revised Rules of Court should be considered as merely pro forma.

Did the absence of a properly served notice of hearing and proof of service render the motion defective?
Was the adverse party deprived of its right to due process when it was not given an opportunity to oppose the motion effectively?

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its own prior resolution that dismissed respondents’ petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

Did the appellate court commit reversible error by re-examining procedural defects that rendered the motion for reconsideration null and void?
Was the revision of the earlier decision in conflict with the doctrine that procedural non-compliance in motions affects the rights of the adverse party?

Whether the finality and executory nature of the RTC Decision should be upheld despite the subsequent filings and actions by respondents.

Can the dilatory remedial motions, which do not comply with the rules governing notice and hearing, interrupt the running of the appeal period and the finality of judgments?