GR 156903; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156903; November 24, 2006
SPOUSES CARLOS and TERESITA RUSTIA, Petitioners, vs. EMERITA RIVERA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Emerita Rivera filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioners Spouses Rustia and a co-maker, alleging they obtained a loan of ₱130,000.00 payable within 30 days with 5% monthly interest, as evidenced by a promissory note. Petitioners admitted the loan but denied agreeing to pay interest, claiming their monthly payments of ₱6,500.00 were for settling the principal and constituted an overpayment. During trial, respondent presented a letter from petitioner Teresita Rustia which referenced difficulty in paying the 5% monthly interest. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioners to pay the principal plus the stipulated interest.
Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC decision. They then filed a motion for reconsideration with the RTC, which was denied for lacking a notice of the time and place of hearing as required by the Rules of Court. Their subsequent petition for review with the Court of Appeals was denied, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s treatment of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration as a mere scrap of paper for lack of a proper notice of hearing.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the award of interest despite petitioners’ claim that there was no written stipulation for it.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On the first issue, the Court held that the RTC correctly deemed the motion for reconsideration a mere scrap of paper. Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that a motion requiring a hearing, like a motion for reconsideration, must contain a notice specifying the time and date of hearing addressed to all parties. The lack of such notice is fatal and renders the motion a nullity, as consistently held in jurisprudence. Therefore, the RTC’s denial of the motion was proper.
On the second issue, the Court found no error in the award of interest. The trial court’s factual finding, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that petitioner Teresita Rustia’s letter acknowledged the 5% monthly interest, constitutes a written stipulation satisfying Article 1956 of the Civil Code. This finding of fact by the lower courts is binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. Thus, the imposition of interest was legally sound.