G.R. No. 193650 , October 8, 2014
George Pidlid P. Palileo and Jose De La Cruz, Petitioners, vs. Planters Development Bank, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners George Palileo and Jose Dela Cruz filed a complaint for specific performance/sum of money with damages against respondent Planters Development Bank (PDB) and others. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, Branch 37, rendered a Decision on June 15, 2006, ordering the defendants, including PDB, to jointly and severally pay the petitioners actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees. PDB received the Decision on July 17, 2006. On July 31, 2006, PDB filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial via private courier (LBC). The motion set the hearing for August 18, 2006, which was 16 days after its filing. Copies to petitioners were initially sent via LBC to an address with no LBC service, so PDB re-filed the motion via registered mail on August 2, 2006. The RTC, in an Order dated August 30, 2006, denied the Omnibus Motion for being procedurally defective for violating Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, as the hearing was set more than 10 days after filing. The court treated it as a pro forma motion that did not toll the reglementary period for appeal, declared the June 15, 2006 Decision final and executory, and granted execution. PDB filed a Notice of Appeal on September 7, 2006, which the RTC considered tardy. PDB filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC’s orders and writs of execution. The CA initially dismissed the petition but, upon reconsideration, issued an Amended Decision granting the petition, annulling the RTC’s orders and writs of execution, and directing the RTC to give due course to PDB’s appeal. The CA held that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in declaring the Omnibus Motion pro forma, as the defect was not jurisdictional and the motion substantially complied with procedural rules. Petitioners filed the present Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in denying respondent’s Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial for being pro forma and in consequently annulling the orders and writs of execution issued by the trial court.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals. The RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying PDB’s Omnibus Motion as pro forma. The requirement under Section 5, Rule 15 that the hearing be set not later than 10 days after filing is directory, not mandatory. A motion that fails to comply is not necessarily a “mere scrap of paper”; the court may still consider it and require compliance. The defect was not jurisdictional and did not render the motion fatally defective. PDB’s motion contained the requisite notice of hearing and was served upon petitioners. The setting of the hearing beyond the 10-day period was a procedural lapse that could be corrected, not a ground to declare the motion pro forma. The RTC should have notified PDB of the defect or simply reset the hearing to an earlier date. By declaring the motion pro forma and denying it on that basis, the RTC effectively deprived PDB of its right to appeal, constituting grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the RTC’s orders and writs of execution, which were premised on the finality of the judgment due to the denial of the motion, were annulled. The RTC was directed to give due course to PDB’s appeal.