GR 138855; (October, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138855 . October 29, 2002.
LAMBERTO CASALLA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and MILAGROS S. ESTEVANES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lamberto Casalla issued two Bank of Commerce checks to private respondent Milagros Santos-Estevanes in payment of his wife’s obligation. The checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, two criminal complaints for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) were filed against him. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasig City convicted him on two counts. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City affirmed the MTC decision with modification. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the RTC, which lacked a notice of hearing. The RTC denied this motion, stating the issues had been passed upon and noting the absence of a notice of hearing. Petitioner then filed a second motion for reconsideration. The RTC denied the second motion and granted private respondent’s motion for issuance of a writ of execution. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which denied it for lack of merit, noting the petition did not show timeliness and that the first motion for reconsideration (being pro forma due to lack of notice of hearing) did not toll the appeal period, making the petition filed out of time. The motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was also denied.
ISSUE
1. Whether the requirement of a notice of hearing applies to a motion for reconsideration filed before the Regional Trial Court acting in its appellate jurisdiction.
2. Whether the Regional Trial Court had the authority to issue a writ of execution of its judgment.
RULING
1. Yes. The requirement of a notice of hearing for a motion for reconsideration is mandatory under the Rules of Court. The rules apply to all courts, including Regional Trial Courts exercising appellate jurisdiction. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner before the RTC lacked a notice of hearing, rendering it a pro forma motion, a mere scrap of paper that did not toll the running of the period for filing an appeal. The subsequent filing of a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading, did not cure this defect.
2. The issue of the writ’s propriety was not reached on the merits due to procedural errors. Petitioner improperly assailed the RTC’s issuance of the writ of execution via a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Court of Appeals. The correct remedy, since no appeal lies from an order of execution, was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not err in denying the petition for review.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.