GR 202069; (March, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 202069 March 7, 2018
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner vs. Alvin C. Dimarucot and Nailyn Tañedo-Dimarucot, Respondents
FACTS
Alvin Dimarucot filed a petition to declare his marriage to Nailyn null and void on the ground of her psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However, the attached Notice of Hearing erroneously stated a hearing date of July 6, 2010, which was actually a date prior to the filing of the motion itself. The RTC denied the motion, treating it as a mere “scrap of paper” for failure to comply with the three-day notice rule, and subsequently denied the Republic’s Notice of Appeal, declaring the judgment final.
The Republic then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s denial order was an indispensable prerequisite for certiorari, which the Republic failed to file. The CA also found no merit in the Republic’s claim of substantial compliance with procedural rules regarding its initial MR.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic’s Petition for Certiorari.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA. The Court held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the assailed interlocutory order is generally a prerequisite for certiorari. However, this rule admits of exceptions, such as when the order is a patent nullity or where the questions raised are purely legal. Here, the RTC’s order declaring the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration a “mere scrap of paper” was a patent nullity. The clerical error in the notice of hearing—a wrong date—did not render the motion fatally defective. The RTC had the discretion to reset the hearing to a proper date. Its outright denial deprived the Republic of its right to be heard on substantive grounds concerning the nullity of marriage decree, a matter of public interest.
Furthermore, the Republic’s act of filing a Notice of Appeal after the denial of its MR was a procedural misstep but did not constitute a waiver of its right to question the RTC’s patently erroneous order. The core issue was the RTC’s denial of due process. The Supreme Court emphasized that in nullity of marriage cases, the State has a compelling interest, and procedural rules should be liberally construed to afford all parties, especially the OSG as the State’s counsel, a full opportunity to be heard on the merits of the psychological incapacity issue. Thus, the RTC was directed to give due course to the Notice of Appeal.