G.R. No. 219260, November 6, 2017
Bernice Joan Ti, Petitioner, vs. Manuel S. Diño, Respondent

FACTS

The case originated from a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents. After the Office of the City Prosecutor initially recommended filing an Information, a reinvestigation led to a reversal and the filing of a Motion to Withdraw Information, which the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) granted. Respondent, through a private prosecutor, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the MeTC’s withdrawal order, which the MeTC granted, reinstating the case. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ruled that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the private prosecutor to file the motion without the public prosecutor’s conformity. The RTC decision was dated March 8, 2010.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 5, 2010. The RTC denied this motion on December 28, 2010, declaring it defective for violating the three-day notice rule, as petitioner’s counsel received it only on April 19, 2010, three days after its scheduled hearing on April 16, 2010. Respondent received the denial on February 11, 2011, and filed a Notice of Appeal on February 24, 2011. The RTC disapproved this notice, ruling it was filed beyond the reglementary period, as the defective motion did not toll the period for appeal. Respondent assailed this via a Rule 65 petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted it, holding the appeal was timely. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to respondent’s appeal by liberally applying procedural rules, specifically overlooking the violation of the mandatory three-day notice rule for motions.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA and reinstating the RTC’s order. The Court held that the respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration filed in the RTC was fatally defective for non-compliance with Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a motion requiring a hearing must be served so that the opposing party receives it at least three days before the hearing. The record showed petitioner received the motion only on April 19, 2010, for a hearing set on April 16, 2010. This defect rendered the motion a mere scrap of paper that did not toll the running of the reglementary period to appeal. Consequently, the RTC Decision became final and executory fifteen days after March 8, 2010. The Notice of Appeal filed on February 24, 2011 was therefore indisputably out of time.
The Court emphasized that while procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice, such liberality is not a right of a litigant and is not applicable where, as here, the party’s own negligence or deliberate violation caused the procedural lapse. The three-day notice rule is fundamental to due process, ensuring the adverse party has time to study and oppose the motion. Respondent offered no compelling reason to justify the lapse. Thus, the RTC correctly disapproved the Notice of Appeal, and the CA committed reversible error in overturning that order.