G.R. No. 210055 , June 22, 2015
THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JUAN B. GUTIERREZ, represented by ANTONIA S. GUTIERREZ, (for herself and in her capacity as duly appointed Special Administratrix of the Estate of Juan B. Gutierrez), Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF SPOUSE JOSE and GRACITA CABANGON, represented by BLANCA CABANGON, JUDGE CADER P. INDAR, AL HAJ, Branch 14, 12th Judicial Region Cotabato City, and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Special Former 21st Division, Mindanao Station, Cagayan De Oro City, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Jose and Gracita Cabangon bought three lots from Juan B. Gutierrez in 1975, payable in installments. Juan B. Gutierrez promised to transfer the title upon full payment. The spouses claimed they paid until only a balance of ₱3,723.53 remained, but Juan stopped collecting and imposed a new condition to sell only one lot, which they refused. Juan also leased the lots to others. The spouses consigned the balance with the court in 1981 and filed a suit for Specific Performance and Damages (Civil Case No. 2618) before the RTC of Cotabato City, Branch 13, praying that Juan be ordered to receive the balance and transfer ownership. Juan B. Gutierrez died in April 2001. On July 11, 2005, Judge Cader P. Indar was assigned to RTC Branch 14, while Judge Bansawan Ibrahim was appointed regular judge of RTC Branch 13. On July 12, 2005, RTC Branch 13, through Judge Indar, ordered the case submitted for resolution. On August 26, 2005, it rendered a Decision ordering the transfer of ownership, possession, and control of the lots to the Spouses Cabangon, and directing an accounting of rentals. The Estate filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial, which was denied. The Estate filed a Notice of Appeal, but the RTC denied the appeal, ruling the motion was pro forma and did not toll the reglementary period. The RTC granted a Motion for Execution. The Estate filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, which was denied. The CA sustained the RTC, ruling that Judge Indar had authority to decide the case and that the Estate’s motion for reconsideration was pro forma for lack of a notice of hearing, making the appeal filed out of time.

ISSUE

1. Whether Judge Cader P. Indar had the authority to decide Civil Case No. 2618 after his transfer/reassignment and the appointment of a new regular judge for the branch.
2. Whether the Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial filed by the Estate was pro forma for lack of a proper notice of hearing, thereby resulting in an appeal filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
1. On Judge Indar’s Authority: The Court ruled that Judge Indar had the authority to decide the case. Citing court guidelines, a judge transferred or assigned to another branch shall be considered an Assisting Judge of the branch to which he was previously assigned. Cases substantially heard and submitted for decision prior to the transfer may be decided by the judge who heard them, if requested by any party and endorsed through the Office of the Court Administrator. The authority of a newly-appointed judge starts upon assumption of duty, which includes conducting an inventory of pending cases. The Estate failed to prove that Judge Ibrahim assumed office on the claimed date and that he conducted the required inventory before the decision was released. Therefore, Judge Indar retained authority to decide the case.
2. On the Pro Forma Motion: The Court ruled that the Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial was pro forma for lack of the mandatory notice of hearing as required by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. A motion without such notice is a mere scrap of paper and does not toll the reglementary period for appeal. The Estate’s plea for relaxation of procedural rules was denied, as the requirement is mandatory and no persuasive reasons or meritorious circumstances justified its suspension in this case. Thus, the RTC decision had become final and executory.