G.R. No. 167691 , September 23, 2008
Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Expedita L. Aquino

FACTS

Respondent Expedita Aquino leased a commercial building for a computer gaming business. She had the electrical service, previously held by the former tenant, Mrs. Paglinawan, reconnected by petitioner Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative (CASURECO IV). She paid the reconnection fee and initial bill in Paglinawan’s name but subsequently failed to pay succeeding bills. CASURECO IV inspected the premises, alleged illegal tapping of electricity under R.A. 7832, and presented Aquino with options to pay a differential billing and penalty or face disconnection. Aquino refused, and her electrical service was permanently disconnected. She filed a complaint for damages against CASURECO IV.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied CASURECO IV’s motion to dismiss but, upon reconsideration, dismissed the complaint, ruling that no contract existed between the parties as Aquino’s payments were made in the former tenant’s name. Aquino filed a motion for reconsideration, but the notice of hearing was set only four days later, violating the three-day notice rule. The RTC denied the motion on the merits without addressing this procedural flaw. Aquino then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether Aquino’s complaint stated a cause of action, and (2) whether her appeal to the CA was timely filed.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA. On the first issue, the Court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for damages. A cause of action exists if the complaint alleges a legal right of the plaintiff, a correlative obligation of the defendant, and an act or omission violating that right. Aquino’s amended complaint alleged she was in possession of the premises, CASURECO IV supplied electricity and then disconnected it, causing her business damages. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, these ultimate facts, assumed to be true, would justify judicial relief. The existence of an express or implied contract is a matter of defense to be resolved during trial.
However, on the second issue, the Court ruled that Aquino’s appeal was filed out of time. Her motion for reconsideration in the RTC was fatally defective for non-compliance with Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, which requires a notice of hearing set at least three days ahead. A motion violating this rule is a mere scrap of paper; it does not toll the running of the period to appeal. Since the defective motion did not suspend the reglementary period, her notice of appeal filed 44 days after receiving the RTC’s dismissal order was late. Consequently, the RTC’s order had become final and executory, depriving the CA of jurisdiction. The CA’s decision was set aside, and the appeal was dismissed.