G.R. No. 149236 . February 14, 2007.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE G. PANEDA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 67, CONSOLACION CHAN, ELIZABETH CAPULLA, CAROLINE REYES, BERNARDO DE VERA, JULITA, LORNA, EDNA, RENE, MARITES, MARICAR, RICARDO, JR., and ROLANDO, all surnamed DE VERA, Respondents.

FACTS

Bernardo de Vera purchased a parcel of land from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) under a “Contract of Sale with Option to Resell.” After taking possession and introducing improvements, de Vera was evicted by Consolacion Chan, Elizabeth Capulla, and Caroline Reyes, who claimed ownership. Chan, et al. filed an action for quieting of title. De Vera filed a third-party complaint against PNB. The RTC declared Chan, et al. as the lawful owners and ordered PNB to pay de Vera the value of the lot, the cost of improvements, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.
PNB received the RTC decision on November 18, 1998, and timely filed a Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration on December 3, 1998. The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated February 18, 1999, declaring it pro forma and ruling that the decision had become final and executory, as the motion did not toll the appeal period. PNB received this Order on March 2, 1999, and filed a Notice of Appeal on March 3, 1999. The RTC, however, issued a Writ of Execution on March 9, 1999, without acting on the notice.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s Order which declared its decision final and executory on the ground that PNB’s Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration was pro forma, thereby depriving PNB of its right to appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the CA Decision. The Court held that PNB’s Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration was not pro forma. A motion is pro forma if it does not point out specifically the findings or conclusions in the judgment which are not supported by evidence or which are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions. PNB’s motion specifically pointed out that the RTC erred in awarding damages based on a valuation of ₱1,000 per square meter without any evidentiary basis, as the contract price was only ₱15 per square meter. It argued the award was speculative and contrary to law and evidence. The motion also contested the awards for improvements and attorney’s fees with particularity. Therefore, the motion was sufficient in form and substance to toll the running of the period to appeal. Consequently, PNB’s timely Notice of Appeal filed on March 3, 1999, should have been given due course. The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution and in refusing to allow the appeal.