G.R. No. 201601 - Cabrera vs. Ng

Case Summary (G.R. No. 201601)

Factual Background

The respondent filed a complaint for sum of money alleging that the spouses Cabrera issued three Metrobank checks which were dishonored for being drawn on closed accounts: Check No. 0244694 dated June 30, 2002 for P31,000.00; Check No. 0244674 dated August 9, 2002 for P38,074.76; and Check No. 0244745 dated August 15, 2005 for P2,500,000.00. The spouses admitted issuing the first two checks and conceded those were dishonored but asserted they had paid the amounts through the respondent's son, Richard Ng. They denied issuing the third check and alleged its forcible taking by Richard Ng.

Trial Court Proceedings and Decision

The RTC, after trial, rendered a Decision on August 7, 2007 ordering the spouses Cabrera to pay respondent P2,569,074.00 plus legal interest, moral damages of P50,000.00, attorneys' fees of P20,000.00, and litigation expenses of P10,000.00. The spouses received a copy of the decision on August 8, 2007 and filed a motion for reconsideration dated August 14, 2007.

Motion for Reconsideration and Procedural Posture

The spouses Cabrera set the motion for hearing on August 17, 2007 and mailed a copy to the respondent on August 14, 2007; the respondent actually received the mailing on August 21, 2007. The RTC twice reset the hearing date, and the respondent filed his opposition on September 20, 2007. The motion was actually heard on October 26, 2007, but on December 19, 2007 the RTC issued an Order denying the motion on the ground that the spouses violated the three-day notice requirement under Section 4, Rule 15, rendering the motion a "mere scrap of paper" that did not toll the period to appeal.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

The spouses petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied the petition by Decision dated October 21, 2009, concluding that the RTC correctly applied the three-day notice rule and that adherence to that rule did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied reconsideration in its Resolution dated March 26, 2012.

Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Order of December 19, 2007 that denied the motion for reconsideration solely for failure to comply with the three-day notice requirement under Section 4, Rule 15.

Parties' Contentions

The petitioner contended that the RTC did not actually conduct the hearing on the originally set date and that the motion was eventually heard on October 26, 2007 after the respondent had filed his opposition, thereby rendering the three-day notice issue moot and requiring the RTC to resolve the motion on its merits. The respondent maintained that the spouses failed to comply with the three-day notice rule and that the RTC properly treated the motion as ineffective to toll the appeal period.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the RTC erred in denying the motion for reconsideration solely because the spouses Cabrera mailed notice that reached the respondent four days after the initial hearing date, given that the motion was subsequently reset, actually heard on October 26, 2007, and the respondent had filed an opposition on September 20, 2007.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court explained that Section 4, Rule 15 and Section 5, Rule 15 require service of a notice of hearing at least three days before the hearing and that the general rule treating noncompliant motions as a "worthless piece of paper" is grounded in procedural due process. The Court reiterated precedent that mandates the three-day notice as an integral component of due process and that a defective motion ordinarily does not toll appeal periods (citing Jehan Shipping Corporation v. National Food Authority and others). The Court also reiterated the equally settled principle that the three-day notice rule is not absolute; where the adverse party is afforded the opportunity to be heard and actua

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 201601)

Parties and Procedural Posture

MARYLOU CABRERA, PETITIONER, VS. FELIX NG, RESPONDENT. appear as the parties in the petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45.
The petition assailed the Court of Appeals Decision dated October 21, 2009 and Resolution dated March 26, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 03392.
The petition sought annulment and set aside of the Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, Branch 56 Order dated December 19, 2007 in Civil Case No. MAN-4773.

Key Factual Allegations

Felix Ng filed a complaint on February 14, 2004 for sum of money alleging issuance of three Metrobank checks in favor of the respondent dated June 30, 2002 (P31,000.00), August 9, 2002 (P38,074.76), and August 15, 2005 (P2,500,000.00).
The checks were dishonored upon presentment because the accounts from which they were drawn were closed.
The spouses Cabrera admitted issuing the June 30, 2002 and August 9, 2002 checks and alleged they paid the amounts through the respondent's son Richard Ng.
The spouses Cabrera denied issuing the August 15, 2005 check and claimed it was forcibly taken from them by Richard Ng.

Lower Court Proceedings

The RTC rendered its decision on August 7, 2007 ordering the spouses Cabrera to pay P2,569,074.00 plus legal interest, moral damages of P50,000.00, attorneys' fees of P20,000.00, and litigation expenses of P10,000.00.
The spouses Cabrera filed a motion for reconsideration on August 14, 2007 which the RTC set for hearing on August 17, 2007.
A copy of the motion was mailed to the respondent on August 14, 2007 but was actually received by the respondent on August 21, 2007.
The RTC reset the hearing first to September 25, 2007 and then to October 26, 2007, and the respondent filed an opposition on September 20, 2007.
The RTC issued an Order dated December 19, 2007 denying the motion for reconsideration on the ground that the spouses Cabrera violated the three-day notice requirement of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC concluded that a motion failing the three-day notice requirement is a "mere scrap of paper" that does not toll the period to appeal.

Court of Appeals Disposition

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari on October 21, 2009 and affirmed the RTC's denial of the motion for reconsideration as a correct application of the three-day notice rule.
The Court of Appeals held that adherence to the three-day notice rule constituted essential respect for procedural due pro