G.R. No. 125290 . February 29, 2000.
MARIO BASCO Y SALAO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mario Basco was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and a separate election offense, and was sentenced to, among others, reclusion perpetua. He received the decision on March 22, 1993. On April 6, 1993, his counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However, the motion fatally omitted the mandatory notice of hearing specifying the date and time for its consideration, as required by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Counsel later filed a “Notification and Manifestation” attempting to set the motion for hearing on April 23, 1993.
The trial court, in an Order dated April 28, 1993, declared the Motion for Reconsideration a mere “scrap of paper” for lack of proper notice. It ruled that the filing of this defective motion did not toll the reglementary period to appeal, and consequently, the judgment had become final and executory. Basco’s subsequent Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38, attributing the lapse to excusable negligence due to power outages, was denied by the trial court and, on appeal, by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for relief from judgment, thereby upholding the trial court’s declaration that the judgment had become final due to counsel’s failure to comply with the notice of hearing requirement for a motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of procedural rules concerning motions. A motion that does not contain a notice of hearing is a fatal defect; it is considered a mere scrap of paper that presents no question for the court’s consideration and does not interrupt the period to appeal. The Court emphasized that the rules on notice are not mere technicalities but essential requirements of due process to ensure the adverse party is properly notified and the court acquires jurisdiction to resolve the motion.
The negligence of petitioner’s counsel in failing to indicate the hearing date was not excusable. The alleged “inadvertence” due to power outages does not justify non-compliance with a fundamental rule designed to ensure orderly procedure. The right to appeal is statutory, and perfection within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to perfect an appeal renders the trial court’s decision final and executory. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the application of the rules in this case, as the negligence was solely attributable to counsel, whose mistakes generally bind the client. The denial of the petition for relief was therefore proper.