G.R. No. L-32450-51 June 10, 1971
HON. ARMANDO B. CLEDERA, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. ULPIANO SARMIENTO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents were employees of the Province of Camarines Sur whose positions under the road and bridge fund budget were abolished by Provincial Board Resolution No. 176, series of 1968. They filed two consolidated cases for prohibition and/or mandamus seeking reinstatement and back salaries. After pre-trial, the parties agreed to submit the cases for decision based on a stipulation of facts and evidence already presented. The trial court initially denied private respondents’ motion to reopen the cases to present additional evidence. Subsequently, private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of this denial, which motion initially lacked a notice of hearing. They later filed a request with the clerk of court to set it for hearing, with notice to the Provincial Fiscal. The respondent judge then issued orders requiring petitioners to oppose the motion and, ultimately, granted the reconsideration, reopened the cases, and allowed the presentation of additional evidence. This led to a decision in favor of the private respondents.
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration of the adverse decision, but their notice of hearing was addressed only to the clerk of court, requesting that the motion be “submitted… for resolution,” without setting a specific date for hearing or indicating that copies were served on opposing counsel. The trial court denied this motion and later granted execution. Petitioners filed the instant certiorari petition, arguing that the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction in granting private respondents’ motion for reconsideration (of the order denying reopening) because it was initially a mere scrap of paper for lack of a notice of hearing.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting private respondents’ motion for reconsideration which was initially filed without a notice of hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the challenged orders. The legal logic centers on the distinction between a motion that is a mere scrap of paper and one that is subsequently cured. A motion without a notice of hearing is indeed a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the running of the reglementary period and upon which the court cannot act. However, this defect is not necessarily jurisdictional and can be cured. In this case, private respondents cured the defect by subsequently filing a request for setting with the clerk of court and providing notice to the adverse party, the Provincial Fiscal, before the court acted on the motion. The Fiscal was given an opportunity to oppose but did not. Therefore, the respondent judge validly acquired jurisdiction to act on the meritorious motion.
In contrast, the petitioners’ own motion for reconsideration of the final decision was fatally defective. Their notice of hearing was addressed only to the clerk of court, asking for the motion’s submission for resolution, without specifying a date for hearing or proving service on opposing counsel. This failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Rules of Court, rendering their motion a mere scrap of paper that did not interrupt the finality of the judgment. Consequently, the trial court’s orders granting execution were valid. The Court emphasized strict adherence to procedural rules regarding notices of hearing to ensure orderly judicial administration and avoid uncertainty.