FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 198531, September 28, 2015
ETHEL, EMMIE, ELVIE, EARLYN, EVELYN, ALL SURNAMED ACAMPADO, AND KATIPUNAN M. DE LOS REYES AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, KALIBO, AKLAN, BRANCH 6, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES LOURDES R. COSMILLA AND FELIMON COSMILLA, AND LORELIE COSMILLA, FOR HERSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF LOURDES R. COSMILLA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
For resolution of the Court is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by petitioners Ethel Acampado, Emmie Acampado, Elvie Acampado, Earlyn Acampado and Evelyn Acampado seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions dated 28 June 20072 and 19 August 20113 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. SP. No. 00805. The assailed resolutions reversed the Order4 dated 16 May 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aklan, Branch 6 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents Spouses Lourdes and Felimon Cosmilla for being pro forma. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and the Order of the Court a quo dated May 16, 2005, declaring the Motion for Reconsideration pro forma is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the court a quo is hereby directed to forthwith resolve petitioners' motion for reconsideration of its Decision dated March 31, 2005."5ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, [respondents'] complaint is hereby DISMISSED. [Respondents] are also ordered to jointly and severally pay [petitioner Katipunan de los Reyes] the sum of P25,000.00 for transportation expenses and attorney's fees as well as [petitioner Acampados] P21,772.50 for attorney's fees and litigation expenses.Aggrieved, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration10 on 6 May 2005 seeking for the reversal of the earlier RTC Decision.
Costs against the [respondents]."9ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, 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 has already expired.Ascribing grave abuse of discretion, respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus12 with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and TRO seeking to annul and set aside the RTC Order dated 16 May 2005.
SO ORDERED."
cralawred
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ISSUING RESOLUTION DATED 28 JUNE 2007 AND RESOLUTION DATED 19 AUGUST 2011 WHICH, IN EFFECT RECONSIDERED ITS OWN DECISION DATED 27 OCTOBER 2006 DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS WITH PRAYER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TRO OF RESPONDENTS.19ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
RULE 15. SEC. 4. Hearing of motion. - Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
SEC. 5. Notice of hearing. - The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.The foregoing requirements — that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion — are mandatory, and if not religiously complied with, the motion becomes pro forma.20 A motion that does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon.21 The logic for such requirement is simple: a motion invariably contains a prayer which the movant makes to the court which is usually in the interest of the adverse party to oppose.22 The notice of hearing to the adverse party is therefore a form of due process; it gives the other party the opportunity to properly vent his opposition to the prayer of the movant.23 In keeping with the principles of due process, therefore, a motion which does not afford the adverse party a chance to oppose should simply be disregarded.24 Principles of natural justice demand that a right of a party should not be affected without giving it an opportunity to be heard.25cralawred
SEC. 6. Proof of service necessary. No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
"Under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, x x x a motion is required to be accompanied by a notice of hearing which must be served by the applicant on all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof. Section 6 of the same rule commands that '(n)o motion shall be acted upon by the Court, without proof of service of the notice thereof x x x.' It is therefore patent that the motion for reconsideration in question is fatally defective for it did not contain any notice of hearing. We have already consistently held in a number of cases that the requirements of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court are mandatory and that failure to comply with the same is fatal to movant's cause." (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryNevertheless, the three-day requirement is not a hard and fast rule.31 Where a party has been given an opportunity to be heard, the time to study the motion and oppose it, there is compliance with the rule.32 The test is the presence of the opportunity to be heard, as well as to have time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon which it is based.33
Endnotes:
* Acting Member per Special Order No. 2188 dated 16 September 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 12-44.
2 Id. at 46-51; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Antonio L. Villamor, concurring.
3 Id. at 53-56; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta , Jr., with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Gabriel T. Ingles, concurring.
4 Id. at 120-121; penned by Judge Niovady M. Marin.
5 Id. at 50.
6 Id. at 142-146.
7 Id. at 144-145.
8 Id. at 75-88.
9 Id. at 88.
10 Id. at 89-112.
11 Supra note 4.
12 Id. at 121-134.
13 Id. at 197-205; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Antonio L. Villamor, concurring.
14 Id. at 200-204.
15 Id. at 206-207.
16 Id. at 46-51.
17 Id. at 53-56.
18 Supra note 1.
19 Id. at 24.
20Solar Resources, Inc. v. Inland Trailways, Inc., 579 Phil. 548, 563 (2008).
21 Id.
22Neri v. Dela Peña, 497 Phil. 73, 81 (2005).
23 Id.
24 Id.
25Sarmiento v. Zaraian, 543 Phil. 232, 243 (2007).
26Solar Resources, Inc. v. Inland Trailways, Inc., supra note 13.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 564.
30 165 Phil. 636 (1976) as cited in Solar Resources, Inc. v. Inland Trail-ways, Inc., supra note 20 at 564.
31United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. v. Acropolis Central Guaranty Corporation, 680 Phil. 64, 79 (2012).
32 Id. at 79-80.
33Sarmiento v. Zaratan, supra note 25.
34 Supra note 10.
35Solar Resources, Inc. v. Inland Trailways, Inc., supra note 20 at 562.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39Bongcac v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 606 Phil. 48, 56 (2009).
40 Id.
41 Id.