Case Digest (G.R. No. 219260)
Facts:
Bernice Joan Ti v. Manuel S. Dino, G.R. No. 219260, November 06, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The criminal proceedings began when the Office of the City Prosecutor, on February 19, 2008, recommended filing an information for falsification of public documents against Bernice Joan Ti (petitioner) and Julieta Fernandez. The MeTC allowed reinvestigation; the City Prosecutor’s first resolution was reversed and the prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information which the MeTC granted on June 24, 2008. Thereafter, through a private prosecutor, Manuel S. Dino (respondent) moved for reconsideration of the MeTC’s withdrawal; on November 14, 2008 the MeTC granted that motion and found probable cause to indict petitioner and Fernandez.
Petitioner and Fernandez filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO/preliminary injunction in the RTC, Branch 77, Quezon City (SP. Civil Action No. Q-09-65933) alleging grave abuse by the MeTC. On March 8, 2010 the RTC found the MeTC committed grave abuse in reinstating the criminal case without the concurrence of the public prosecutor. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 5, 2010 before the RTC; petitioner filed a Motion to Expunge that motion on the ground of violation of the three-day notice rule and lack of MCLE compliance by respondent’s counsel.
On December 28, 2010 the RTC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration, ruling respondent’s motion defective for failure to comply with the three-day notice requirement; the RTC concluded the decision had become final after lapse of the 15-day period for appeal on May 5, 2010. Respondent received the RTC resolution on February 11, 2011 and filed a Notice of Appeal on February 24, 2011. The RTC on May 20, 2011 disapproved the Notice of Appeal as not perfected within the reglementary fifteen-day period and did not order transmittal of records to the Court of Appeals.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC’s May 20, 2011 Order. On January 10, 2014 the CA granted respondent’s petition, reversed and set aside the RTC order, and directed the RTC to transmit the records; the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a June 30, 2015 Resolution. Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in granting respondent’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and giving due course to respondent’s notice of appeal?
- Was respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC fatally defective for violation of the three-day notice rule (Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15, Rules of Court) such that the RTC correctly treated the motion as a “scrap of paper” and allowed the 15-day appeal period to lapse?
- Was service of the notice of hearing by registered mail adequate, or was personal service required under Section ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)