GR 124267; (January, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124267; January 31, 2003
NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF SAUDI ARABIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner NCBSA filed a collection case against respondent PBC in the Makati RTC to recover a duplicate payment made under a letter of credit. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of NCBSA on August 24, 1993. PBC received the decision on September 3, 1993, and on September 15, 1993 (the 12th day of the appeal period), it filed a Motion for Reconsideration. This motion, however, lacked the mandatory notice of hearing.
NCBSA filed a Manifestation pointing out this fatal defect. Subsequently, on September 27, 1993, PBC filed a “Motion to Set ‘Motion for Reconsideration’ for Hearing.” The RTC, in an Order dated February 1, 1994, struck PBC’s Motion for Reconsideration from the records for lack of a notice of hearing and granted NCBSA’s Motion for Execution. PBC’s Motion for Reconsideration of this order, which claimed an “honest mistake or oversight of counsel,” was denied by the RTC on March 2, 1994.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly relaxed procedural rules by granting PBC’s Petition for Certiorari and ordering the RTC to resolve the merits of PBC’s fatally defective Motion for Reconsideration.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ Amended Decision and reinstated the RTC’s resolutions. The requirement of a notice of hearing for a motion for reconsideration under the Rules of Court is mandatory. A motion filed without it is a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the running of the period to appeal and deserves no judicial cognizance.
PBC’s attempt to cure the defect by filing a “Motion to Set for Hearing” nine days after the appeal period had expired was invalid. A belated filing cannot remedy a fatally defective motion. The Court emphasized that while litigation is not a game of technicalities, procedural rules cannot be ignored at will. Relaxation is warranted only for the most persuasive reasons, which PBC failed to show. Its motion did not even explain the initial omission, merely stating a need to “amplify and expound” on the issues. Furthermore, the Court found PBC’s substantive arguments in the motion for reconsideration to be pro forma, as they merely rehashed defenses already passed upon by the trial court. No oppressive exercise of judicial authority was present to justify annulment of the RTC’s orders. The Supreme Court thus granted NCBSA’s petition, upholding strict compliance with procedural rules to avoid further delay in a case already pending for over 17 years.