G.R. No. 130314 September 22, 1998
ANNIE TAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BLOOMBERRY EXPORT MANUFACTURING, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Annie Tan leased a portion of her building to private respondent Bloomberry Export Manufacturing, Inc. Petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against private respondent for alleged violations of the lease contract, while private respondent filed a case for consignation after petitioner refused its rental payment. The two cases were consolidated. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) dismissed petitioner’s complaint and allowed private respondent to continue consigning rental payments. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC decision in toto on July 18, 1996. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC decision, but this motion did not contain any notice of hearing as required by the Rules of Court. Private respondent filed an ex-parte Motion for Entry of Judgment, contending that the motion for reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper that did not toll the period of appeal, rendering the RTC decision final and executory. Petitioner then filed a Motion to Set for Hearing the Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC granted this motion and set the hearing. Private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC’s order, which was denied. Private respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the RTC’s order setting the hearing, and declared the RTC’s July 18, 1996 Decision final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the omission through inadvertence of a notice of hearing of a motion for reconsideration filed with the trial court is a fatal defect which did not stop the running of the period to appeal, thus rendering the assailed decision final and executory.

RULING

Yes. The petition is devoid of merit. The Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration that does not contain the requisite notice of hearing does not toll the running of the period of appeal. It is a mere scrap of paper which the trial court and the opposite party may ignore. The requirements of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court are mandatory. Service of a copy of a motion containing notice of the time and place of hearing is a mandatory requirement, and failure to comply renders the motion fatally defective. A motion without notice of hearing is a pro forma motion which does not suspend the running of the period to appeal. The exceptions cited by petitioner (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, Tamargo v. Court of Appeals, and Que v. Intermediate Appellate Court) were found inapplicable. The Court found no miscarriage of justice, as petitioner’s failure to observe elementary mandatory rules of procedure caused her own predicament.