Case Digest (G.R. No. 201601)
Facts:
Marylou Cabrera v. Felix Ng, G.R. No. 201601, March 12, 2014, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.On February 14, 2004, Felix Ng (respondent) filed a complaint for sum of money with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City against Marylou Cabrera (petitioner) and her husband Marionilo Cabrera (spouses Cabrera), alleging three Metrobank checks were issued to him and were dishonored when presented for payment because the drawee accounts were closed. The spouses Cabrera admitted issuing two of the checks but claimed they had caused payment to be made through respondent’s son, Richard Ng; they denied issuing the third check, alleging it had been forcibly taken by Richard Ng.
The RTC rendered a Decision dated August 7, 2007 in favor of the respondent, awarding P2,569,074.00 plus interest, moral damages of P50,000, attorneys’ fees of P20,000, and litigation expenses of P10,000. The spouses Cabrera received a copy of the Decision on August 8, 2007 and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 14, 2007, which they set for hearing on August 17, 2007; a copy of the motion mailed to the respondent was received by him on August 21, 2007.
Because of a change in presiding judge, the RTC reset the hearing and issued notices setting the motion for hearing first on September 25, 2007 and later on October 26, 2007; the respondent filed an opposition on September 20, 2007 arguing the motion violated the three-day notice requirement under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. On October 26, 2007 the RTC directed additional pleadings and deemed the motion submitted after they were filed; on December 19, 2007 the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that because the movants failed to serve the opposing party at least three days before the originally scheduled hearing, the motion was a “mere scrap of paper” that did not toll the reglementary period and thus the August 7, 2007 Decision had become final.
The spouses Cabrera filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC’s December 19, 2007 Order. On October 21, 2009 the CA denied the petition, agreeing that the RTC correctly applied the three-day notice rule and that mere adherence to the rule could not be equated to grave abuse of discretion...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC Order dated December 19, 2007 that denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the spouses Cabrera for failure to comply with the three-day notice requirement under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)