G.R. No. L-16636, June 24, 1965
MANILA SURETY AND FIDELITY CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. BATH CONSTRUCTION AND COMPANY, CARLOS N. BAQUIRAN, GONZALO AMBOY, and ANDRES TUNAC, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. on April 27, 1959. Defendants received a copy on May 2, 1959. On May 12, they filed a motion for reconsideration, which lacked a notice of the time and place of hearing. The court, in an order dated May 21, declared that the motion “cannot even be considered as a motion” and presented no question for decision due to this omission. On May 30, defendants filed a “supplement” to their motion, this time including the requisite notice of hearing. The court denied both the motion and supplement on June 6, 1959. Defendants received the denial order on June 13, filed their notice of appeal and appeal bond on June 18, and submitted their record on appeal on June 25. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was filed out of time because the original motion for reconsideration was pro forma and did not interrupt the appeal period. The court granted the motion to dismiss on July 15, stating the appeal period had expired on June 15. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied on August 1. They then filed a petition for relief on August 26, citing excusable negligence—their counsel inadvertently forgot the notice of hearing and only realized the omission upon receiving the court’s May 21 order, leading them to file the supplement. They argued they believed in good faith that the motion interrupted the appeal period since the court acted on its merits in the June 6 order. The petition for relief was dismissed on August 29, and defendants appealed that dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the defendants’ motion for reconsideration filed on May 12, 1959, without a notice of hearing, was a valid motion that interrupted the period for appeal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal. The motion for reconsideration, lacking a notice of hearing as required by Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 (formerly Rule 26) of the Rules of Court, was a mere “useless piece of paper” and could not be acted upon by the court. This requirement applies uniformly, including to motions for new trial under Rule 37, which defendants argued was the nature of their motion. The court emphasized that without such notice, the court cannot determine if the adverse party agrees or objects, nor hear objections, as the Rules do not fix a period for filing oppositions. The “supplement” filed on May 30 could not retroactively cure the defect, as this would reward negligence and undermine the finality of judgments. Additionally, defendants were put on notice by the court’s May 21 order that their filing was not a valid motion. Thus, the appeal period was not interrupted, and the appeal was filed out of time. Costs were awarded against defendants-appellants.