G.R. No. 198531 , September 28, 2015
ETHEL, EMMIE, ELVIE, EARLYN, EVELYN, ALL SURNAMED ACAMPADO, AND KATIPUNAN M. DE LOS REYES AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, KALIBO, AKLAN, BRANCH 6, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES LOURDES R. COSMILLA AND FELIMON COSMILLA, AND LORELIE COSMILLA, FOR HERSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF LOURDES R. COSMILLA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Cosmilla filed a Petition for the Declaration of the Nullity of Document against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 6. They alleged that the sale of their share in a property was effected through a forged Special Power of Attorney (SPA). After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated March 31, 2005, dismissing the complaint for failure to prove the forgery and ordering respondents to pay attorney’s fees and costs. Aggrieved, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 6, 2005. The RTC, in an Order dated May 16, 2005, denied this motion, declaring it pro forma for failure to comply with the notice of hearing requirements under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, and declared its Decision final and executory. Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially dismissed the petition in a Decision dated October 27, 2006, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. However, upon respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration, the CA reversed itself in a Resolution dated June 28, 2007, relaxing the procedural rules, annulling the RTC’s May 16, 2005 Order, and directing the RTC to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration on the merits. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 19, 2011. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in issuing the Resolutions dated June 28, 2007 and August 19, 2011, which reversed its own Decision and effectively allowed the relaxation of procedural rules concerning the notice of hearing requirement for a Motion for Reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It reversed and set aside the assailed CA Resolutions and reinstated the RTC Decision dismissing the complaint and its Order declaring the Motion for Reconsideration pro forma. The Court ruled that respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration was fatally defective for non-compliance with the mandatory notice of hearing requirements under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court. A motion for reconsideration is a contentious motion that affects the rights of the adverse party; therefore, the requirements of notice, hearing, and proof of service are indispensable to afford the adverse party due process—the opportunity to study the motion and oppose it. The Court found that no notice of hearing was appended to the Motion for Reconsideration, and petitioners were not given ample opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the motion was a mere scrap of paper, a pro forma motion that did not toll the running of the reglementary period for appeal. Thus, the RTC Decision dated March 31, 2005, became final and executory. The Court emphasized that litigation must end once a judgment becomes final and executable, and procedural rules are in place to avoid capricious changes and ensure due process.