G.R. No. 116693 July 5, 1996
PURITA DE LA PEÑA and JUDGE VIVENCIO S. BACLIG, RTC-Br. 2, Balanga, Bataan, petitioners, vs. PEDRO R. DE LA PEÑA, BENJAMIN P. BRIONES, SPOUSES JULIA DE LA PEÑA and JOSE ALBERTO, GODOFREDO, VIRGINIA and MARIA, all surnamed DE LA PEÑA, and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioner Purita de la Peña for annulment of deeds of sale and extrajudicial partition, partition of estates, and damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint and the counterclaim. Respondents received the decision on July 2, 1993. On July 15, 1993, they filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order dated August 11, 1993. Subsequently, on August 20, 1993, respondents filed a Notice of Appeal and/or Extension of Time to File Appeal.
Petitioner moved for execution, arguing that the Motion for Reconsideration was pro forma for lacking a notice of hearing and thus did not toll the appeal period. The RTC agreed, issuing an Order on September 29, 1993, which denied the appeal as filed out of time. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the RTC, declaring the Motion for Reconsideration not a mere scrap of paper and the appeal timely filed.

ISSUE

Whether the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondents, which lacked a notice of hearing, is pro forma and thus ineffective in tolling the reglementary period to appeal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the RTC’s order and declaring its judgment final. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of procedural rules governing motions. Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court require that a motion must contain a notice of hearing specifying the time and place, served on all parties at least three days in advance. Non-compliance renders the motion fatally defective.
The Court, citing precedents like Pojas v. Gozo-Dadole and New Japan Motors, Inc. v. Perucho, consistently held that a motion without a proper notice of hearing is a “useless scrap of paper.” The clerk has no right to receive it, and the court has no authority to act upon it. Consequently, such a pro forma motion does not interrupt the running of the period to appeal. Since respondents received the RTC decision on July 2, 1993, they had until July 17, 1993, to appeal. Their Motion for Reconsideration, filed on July 15 but lacking the notice, did not suspend this period. Their Notice of Appeal filed on August 20, 1993, was therefore 34 days late, and the RTC decision had already attained finality. The Court of Appeals erred in applying a liberal construction, as the mandatory rules on notices are designed to ensure order and due process.