GR 89125; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 89125 ; July 2, 1991
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. FAR EAST MOLASSES CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) filed a complaint for sum of money against respondent Far East Molasses Corporation (FEMC) and others. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision against FEMC on June 26, 1987. FEMC received the decision on July 7, 1987, giving it until July 22 to appeal. Instead of filing a notice of appeal, FEMC filed a motion for reconsideration on the last day, July 22. This motion, however, lacked the mandatory notice of hearing.
On the same date, FEMC’s counsel allegedly mailed a “Manifestation and Motion” intended to cure the defect by incorporating a notice of hearing set for August 6, 1987. This pleading was received by the trial court only on August 7. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on July 27. BPI then moved for execution, arguing the judgment had become final because the fatally defective motion did not interrupt the appeal period.
ISSUE
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by FEMC, which initially lacked a notice of hearing but was purportedly cured by a subsequent pleading, effectively interrupted the running of the period to appeal, thereby preventing the judgment from becoming final and executory.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC’s order granting execution. A motion that does not contain a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper; it presents no question for the court to resolve and does not interrupt the period to appeal. The subsequent attempt to cure the defect via a separate “Manifestation and Motion” was ineffective. This belated pleading was received by the court only on August 7, 1987, which was after the original appeal period had lapsed on July 22 and even after the motion for reconsideration had already been denied on July 27.
The Court emphasized that procedural rules on notices are not mere trivialities but essential to due process, ensuring the opposing party is properly notified and the court can calendar the matter. FEMC’s failure to comply strictly with Rule 15, Section 5 of the Rules of Court rendered its motion a nullity. Consequently, the RTC decision became final and executory after July 22, 1987, and BPI was entitled to a writ of execution. The right to appeal is statutory, and perfection within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional.