GR L 45447; (September, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45447 September 28, 1988
CARLITO V. SEMBRANO, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXX and NORTHERN MOTORS, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Northern Motors, Inc. filed a collection suit against Carlito V. Sembrano for the unpaid price of a car. The trial court dismissed the complaint on August 30, 1976, ordering Northern Motors to repair the car’s alternator and Sembrano to resume installment payments thereafter. Northern Motors received the decision on September 7, 1976, making October 7, 1976, the last day to perfect its appeal. On that final day, Northern Motors filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The trial court denied the motion on the same date, citing its fatal defects: it lacked both a notice of hearing and proof of service to the adverse party. Northern Motors received the denial order on October 20, 1976, and filed its notice of appeal the following day.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to Northern Motors’ appeal despite its late perfection.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of procedural rules governing motions. Under Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court, a motion must contain a notice of hearing directed to all parties and be served at least three days before the hearing. This requirement is not a mere technicality but a fundamental rule intended to prevent surprise and afford the adverse party an opportunity to be heard. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Northern Motors was fatally defective as it contained no notice of hearing and no proof of service. Consequently, it was a mere scrap of paper, a pro forma motion that did not toll the running of the 30-day appeal period. Since the period was not interrupted, it expired on October 7, 1976. The notice of appeal filed on October 21, 1976, was therefore filed out of time. The trial court’s decision had become final and executory, and the lower court lost jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The approval of the record on appeal and the grant of an extension, despite the late filing, constituted a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The Court emphasized that strict adherence to procedural rules is necessary for the orderly administration of justice and the prevention of needless delays.