Case Summary (G.R. No. 255877)
Petitioners
The Acampados and Katipunan M. de los Reyes (and the RTC as a party in the appealed matter) were the prevailing parties at trial and before the RTC, against whom respondents filed their original complaint.
Respondents
The Cosmillas alleged that the sale of their share in the subject property was effected through a forged SPA and sought annulment of the document and related reliefs; they filed an amended complaint and subsequently a motion for reconsideration after the adverse trial decision.
Key Dates
- RTC Decision dismissing respondents’ complaint: March 31, 2005.
- Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents: May 6, 2005.
- RTC Order declaring the Motion for Reconsideration pro forma: May 16, 2005.
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dismissing respondents’ petition for certiorari: October 27, 2006.
- CA Resolution reversing itself and directing RTC to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration on the merits: June 28, 2007.
- CA Resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of that June 28, 2007 resolution: August 19, 2011.
- Supreme Court resolution in the instant petition: September 28, 2015.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
The decision applies the 1987 Constitution as the governing constitutional framework, invoking due process principles. Procedural law: Rule 15, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Revised Rules of Court concerning the hearing of motions, the notice of hearing, and proof of service for motions set for hearing. Controlling jurisprudence cited includes Solar Resources, Inc. v. Inland Trailways, Inc.; Neri v. Dela Peña; Sarmiento v. Zaratan; New Japan Motors, Inc. v. Perucho; United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. v. Acropolis Central Guaranty Corporation; and Bongcac v. Sandiganbayan.
Factual Background and Trial Court Findings
Respondents sued to nullify a document they alleged to be forged. After trial on the merits, the RTC found respondents failed to prove forgery by a preponderance of evidence and dismissed the complaint. The RTC also awarded specified costs and attorney’s fees in favor of petitioners.
Motion for Reconsideration and RTC Order
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 6, 2005. The RTC declared that Motion pro forma and denied it in an Order dated May 16, 2005 on the ground that respondents failed to comply with the notice-of-hearing requirements mandated by Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 and did not provide proof of service as required by Section 6.
First Court of Appeals Proceedings
Respondents sought relief from the CA by filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, contending the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. On October 27, 2006, the CA dismissed their petition, agreeing that failure to comply with Sections 4, 5 and 6 rendered the motion for reconsideration a “useless piece of paper” that does not toll the period for finality.
Court of Appeals Reversal on Reconsideration
On respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the CA decision, the CA reversed its prior ruling by Resolution dated June 28, 2007, allowing relaxation of procedural requisites and directing the RTC to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration on the merits. Petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration to the CA of that Resolution was denied on August 19, 2011.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in issuing the June 28, 2007 and August 19, 2011 resolutions effectively reconsidering its October 27, 2006 dismissal; and, more fundamentally, whether respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration was properly declared pro forma by the RTC because it lacked the mandatory notice of hearing and proof of service required by Rule 15, thereby rendering it unworthy of judicial cognizance.
Legal Analysis — Nature of a Motion for Reconsideration and the Mandatory Notice Requirement
The Supreme Court emphasized that a motion for reconsideration is a contentious motion that ordinarily affects the rights of the opposing party and therefore must comply with Rule 15, Sections 4–6. Those sections require that most written motions be set for hearing, that notice of the hearing be served on all parties concerned at least three days prior (unless the court shortens the period for good cause), that the notice specify the time and date (not later than ten days after filing), and that no motion set for hearing be acted upon without proof of service. The Court reiterated established jurisprudence that these requirements are mandatory and that failure to comply renders the motion pro forma — a mere scrap of paper that the court cannot act upon and the clerk has no right to receive.
Legal Analysis — Opportunity to Be Heard and Flexibility of the Three-Day Rule
While recognizing established authority that the three-day notice is not an absolute rule, the Court explained that the operative test is whether the opposing party was given a genuine opportunity to study and oppose the motion. Compliance is measured by the presence of a real, practical opportunity to be heard, not merely technical adherence. In the present case, the Supreme Court found petitioners were not afforded such opportunity because the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents lacked the notice of hearing and proof of service; thus the three-day rule and the broader notice requirement were not satisfied in practice.
Application of Precedent to the Present Case
Relying on prior decisions, including New Japan Motors, the Court concluded that a motion lacking notice and proof of service is fatally defective and cannot be considered. The absence of a notice of hearing attached to respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration deprived petitioners of due process and the chance to oppose, rendering the motion pro forma. Consequently, the running of the period for finality of the judgment was not interrupted.
Finality of Judgment and Public Policy Considerations
The Court underscored the importance of finality of judgment: a prevailing party has a correlative right to enjoy the finality of judicial relief by ex
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 255877)
Facts and Parties
- Petitioners are Ethel, Emmie, Elvie, Earlyn, Evelyn (all surnamed Acampado), Katipunan M. de los Reyes, and the Regional Trial Court, Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 6 (collectively referred to as petitioners in the source).
- Respondents are Spouses Lourdes R. Cosmilla and Felimon Cosmilla, and Lorelie Cosmilla, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of Lourdes R. Cosmilla.
- Respondents filed a Petition for the Declaration of the Nullity of Document before the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 6, alleging that the sale of their share on the subject property was effected through a forged Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and was therefore null and void (Amended Complaint docketed as SPL. Civil Case No. 6644).
- The Amended Complaint specifically alleged forgery of the SPA signatures of the respondents as the basis for nullity of the sale.
Trial Court Proceedings and RTC Decision (31 March 2005)
- After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision dated 31 March 2005 dismissing the complaint of the respondents.
- The RTC found that respondents failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that their signatures in the SPA were forged.
- The RTC ordered respondents to jointly and severally pay petitioner Katipunan de los Reyes the sum of P25,000.00 for transportation expenses and attorney's fees, and to pay petitioners (the Acampados) P21,772.50 for attorney's fees and litigation expenses; costs were imposed against respondents.
- The RTC Decision was thus in favor of petitioners and against respondents on the merits.
Motion for Reconsideration Filed by Respondents and RTC Order (16 May 2005)
- Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 6 May 2005 seeking reversal of the RTC Decision dated 31 March 2005.
- The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated 16 May 2005, declaring the motion pro forma for failure to comply with the notice of hearing requirements under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- The RTC's dispositive language: the Motion for Reconsideration is declared pro forma and the decision sought to be reconsidered is declared final and executory as the period of appeal had already expired.
Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus to the Court of Appeals and Initial CA Decision (27 October 2006)
- Respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and TRO, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in declaring their motion pro forma.
- The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 27 October 2006, dismissed respondents' petition for lack of merit.
- The Court of Appeals held there was no showing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction by denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
- The appellate court affirmed the principle that a motion failing to comply with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules of Court is a useless piece of paper and does not toll the reglementary period.
Court of Appeals Reconsideration and Subsequent Resolutions (28 June 2007; 19 August 2011)
- On a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents, the Court of Appeals reversed its earlier resolution and allowed relaxation of the procedural requirements in a Resolution dated 28 June 2007.
- The 28 June 2007 Resolution vacated the RTC Order dated 16 May 2005 and directed the RTC to forthwith resolve respondents' Motion for Reconsideration on the merits.
- Later, in a Resolution dated 19 August 2011, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners (i.e., petitioners sought reconsideration of the appellate court's 28 June 2007 action; the denial of their motion was recorded on 19 August 2011).
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- The core issue presented by petitioners to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred and committed reversible error in issuing the Resolutions dated 28 June 2007 and 19 August 2011, which, in effe