G.R. No. 197380 - Zuniga-Santos vs. Santos-Gran

On April 15, 1976, the petitioner, Bank of the Philippine Islands, filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Rizal.
The complaint sought recovery from the respondent, Far East Molasses Corporation, together with other defendants, including L & A Company, Inc., the Estate of Trinidad Lazatin, and the Intestate Estate of Eduardo Ayson, for an aggregate amount of P575,043.75 plus interest and a service fee.

The trial court in Civil Case No. 23282 conducted due trial and rendered a decision on June 26, 1987.
The decision ordered:

The defendants (including respondent and a co-defendant) to jointly and severally pay the sum along with 14% per annum interest and a 2% per annum service fee starting from March 16, 1976.
Additional orders covering an attorney’s fee equivalent to 10% of the total award and the payment of costs.

A third party complaint was also resolved in favor of LA & Co. Inc. against several third-party defendants for reimbursement of amounts and costs awarded to the petitioner.

Private respondent (then defendant) received a copy of the trial court’s decision on July 7, 1987 and had until July 22, 1987 to appeal.
Instead of filing a proper notice of appeal, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the morning of July 22, 1987; the motion, however, did not contain the mandatory notice of hearing.
Allegedly, to cure the omission, respondent’s counsel mailed a “Manifestation and Motion” incorporating a notice of hearing (stating that the motion would be heard on August 6, 1987 at 8:30 A.M.) on the same day.
Petitioner denied ever receiving any copy of this supplemental pleading and questioned the reliability of the mailing, especially given the messenger’s inability to specify the post office used.

On August 3, 1987, petitioner filed a motion for execution of judgment, arguing that the decision had become final because the defective motion for reconsideration did not stop the appeal period.
Initially, on August 10, 1987, the trial court denied the motion for execution, basing its ruling on the finding that the defect in the motion was cured by the supplemental “Manifestation and Motion.”
Subsequently, on August 24, 1987, the trial court reconsidered and granted petitioner’s motion for execution.
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s reversal, respondent elevated the case, filing a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with a request for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order before the Court of Appeals (CA).

Analyzed the timing of receipt of the decision copies and the corresponding appeal period.
Discussed several precedents regarding motions for reconsideration without notice of hearing.
Concluded that the defect in respondent’s motion was cured by the mailing of the supplemental pleading and that the motion had suspended the running of the appeal period.

Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari challenging the CA ruling, alleging grave abuse of discretion and misinterpretation of the appeal period and notice requirements.
Petitioner later filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision on March 20, 1989, which was denied on July 11, 1989.
The instant petition for certiorari was eventually filed on July 28, 1989.

Whether the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration that lacked the required notice of hearing is legally effective to halt the running of the appeal period.
Whether the subsequent mailing of a so-called “Manifestation and Motion” incorporating a notice, albeit filed by ordinary mail and not served as required, cures the defect in the original motion for reconsideration.
Whether the trial court’s decision to grant the motion for execution by reconsidering its earlier order was proper given the defective filing and the timing of compliance with the Rules of Court.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in accepting the alleged cure of the defect and in misinterpreting the computation and perfection of the appeal period based on the dates of receipt of copies of the decision.