03 Dela Pena v.

Dela Pena
GR. No. 116693 (1996)
J. BELLOSILLO / Tita K

Subject Matter: Rule 15; Notice of hearing; pro forma

Case Summary: Respondents filed a complaint against petitioner for the annulment of a deed of sale, etc. RTC dismissed the
complaint. Respondent received a copy of the RTC decision on July 2, 1993. It filed a MR which did not contain a notice of hearing.
Respondents then filed their Notice of Appeal and/or Motion for Time Extension to File Appeal on August 20, 1993 (which was 49
days after receipt of RTC decision). RTC denied the motion for time extension because it was filed out of time, the MR filed earlier
did not toll the period because it lacked a notice of hearing, hence pro forma. CA reversed the RTC decision. WON the MR stopped
the running of period of appeal, the SC ruled in the negative. The MR filed by the plaintiffs did not contain any notice of hearing as
required by Sec 5 Rule 15. It was therefore pro forma, hence it did not suspend the running of the prescriptive period. The copy of
the decision was received on 2 July 1993. Consequently, respondents had until 17 July 1993 within which to file their notice of
appeal. Since they filed their Notice of Appeal and/or Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal on 20 August 1993 or 49 days after
receipt of the decision, the appeal was clearly filed out of time.
Doctrine/s:
The requirements laid down in Sec. 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and
shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion, are mandatory.

If not religiously complied with, they render the motion pro forma. As such the motion is a useless piece of paper that will not toll
the running of the prescriptive period.

Action Before SC: “This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court”
Parties:
Petitioner PURITA DE LA PENA, JUDGE VIVENCIO S. BACLIG, RTC-Br. 2, Balanga, Bataan

Respondent PEDRO R. DE LA PENA, BENJAMIN P. BRIONES, SPOUSES JULIA DE LA PENA and JOSE
ALBERTO, GODOFREDO, VIRGINIA, and MARIA, all surnamed DE LA PENA, and the COURT OF
APPEALS-Fourth Division
Antecedent Facts:
RTC
1. Respondents filed a complaint against petitioner Purita in the RTC seeking:
a) the annulment of the deed of sale and deed of extrajudicial partition executed between Fortunata Dela Pena and Purita
Dela Pena,
b) the partition of the estates of Fortunata Dela Pena and Gavina Dela Pena, and

2. Petitioner Purita filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars praying that all the heirs of Gavina and Fortunata and the entire estate
of each be properly included and defined. The motion was granted and the bill of particulars was filed.

3. Petitioner Purita filed her Answer with Counterclaim.

4. RTC Judge Baclig dismissed the complaints and the Purita’s counterclaim.

5. Respondents (plaintiffs before RTC) received a copy of the RTC decision on 2 July 1993.

6. On 15 July 1993, plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration which did not contain a notice of hearing.

7. Judge Baclig denied the motion for reconsideration as he found no cogent and compelling reason to warrant the reversal
or modification of the decision sought to be reconsidered.

8. Consequently, on 20 August 1993, Respondents(plaintiffs) filed a Notice of Appeal and/or Extension of Time to File
Appeal.

9. Judge Baclig denied respondents’ motion for extension to file an appeal. RTC ruled that plaintiffs period to appeal had
already lapsed. The MR did not toll the period since it lacked a notice of hearing, hence pro forma.
CA
10. CA reversed the RTC decision. CA nullified RTC’s order which declared respondents' MR pro forma.
11. Petitioner Purita filed a MR. Petitioner argued that without a notice of hearing, the motion did not stop the running of the
period to appeal, and that a motion for reconsideration without such notice of hearing was a mere scrap of paper which
did not warrant court’s attention.
12. CA denied the MR.
Issues:
1. WON CA erred in not holding that a MR without a notice of hearing is pro forma and does not toll the running of the period
for appeal– YES, CA erred.
Ratio:
Yes – CA erred because contrary to its ruling, a Motion for reconsideration that does not contain any notice of hearing is pro forma,
and does not suspend the running of the prescriptive period.

 Rule 15 ROC requires:

1) that notice of hearing be served at least 3 days before its hearing (Sec. 4, Rule 15), and
2) that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the
motion (Sec. 5, Rule 15).

 The requirements laid down in Sec. 5 of Rule 15 are mandatory.

 If not religiously complied with, they render the motion pro forma. As such the motion is a useless piece of paper that will
not toll the running of the prescriptive period.
o In the instant case, there is no dispute that the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs did not contain
any notice of hearing. It was therefore pro forma, hence it did not suspend the running of the prescriptive period.
o The copy of the decision was received on 2 July 1993. Consequently, respondents had until 17 July 1993 within
which to file their notice of appeal.
o Since they filed their Notice of Appeal and/or Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal on 20 August 1993 or 49
days after receipt of the decision, the appeal was clearly filed out of time.
o On that date the decision of the RTC already attained finality 34 days earlier, hence, could no longer be reviewed
much less modified on appeal.
o The filing of the Notice of Appeal and/or Extension of Time to File Appealwas a futile exercise. There was no longer
any period to appeal nor a decision that could still be appealed.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The questioned Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 25
May 1994 and 29 July 1994 are SET ASIDE and the assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court declaring the motion for reconsideration
filed by private respondent as pro forma is REINSTATED. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the complaint as well as the
counterclaim has acquired FINALITY.