G.R. No. L-25932. March 19, 1971.
LUCILA B. VDA. DE AZARIAS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MANOLO L. MADDELA, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon and MAMERTO AZARIAS, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Mamerto Azarias, Jr. filed a petition to be appointed administrator and recognized as a natural child of the deceased Mamerto Azarias. The Court of First Instance of Quezon, presided by Judge Manolo L. Maddela, rendered a decision on January 22, 1965, appointing the widow, Lucila B. Vda. de Azarias, as administratrix but declaring Mamerto Azarias, Jr. as a natural child and heir. The petitioner received a copy of this decision on February 16, 1965. On February 22, 1965, she filed a motion for reconsideration and/or correction of the decision. While she served copies of this motion on the judge and the opposing counsel, the motion itself did not contain a notice stating the time and place for its hearing. The respondent judge subsequently denied this motion for lack of the required formal notice and later disapproved her notice of appeal, bond, and record on appeal, ruling the decision had become final. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for mandamus to compel approval of her appeal.

ISSUE

Did the trial court act correctly in denying the motion for reconsideration and declaring the decision final due to the motion’s lack of a formal notice of hearing, despite service of copies on the parties?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that a motion for reconsideration which does not comply with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, requiring a written notice specifying the time and place of hearing served on all parties at least three days in advance, is a mere “worthless piece of paper.” The clerk has no right to receive it, and the court has no authority to act upon it. The reason is fundamental: without such notice, the court cannot determine if the adverse party agrees or objects, nor can it hear any opposition, as the Rules do not fix a period for filing an opposition unless a hearing is set. The petitioner’s arguments—that the omission was to save the judge from embarrassment or that the motion’s substantive grounds made it non-pro-forma—were unavailing. The duty to provide notice rests solely on the movant, and the court’s motu proprio setting of a hearing does not cure the defect, especially if the decision had already become final due to the invalid motion. Consequently, the period for appeal was not tolled, and the decision became final and executory. The ruling is based on established jurisprudence, including Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Batu Construction and Co. and In Re Almacen.