View full case

BERNICE JOAN TI v. MANUEL S. DIÑO

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by petitioner Bernice Joan Ti. The petitioner seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) disapproving the respondent's Notice of Appeal for being filed out of time.

The Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution recommending the filing of an Information against the petitioner and another person for falsification of public documents. The petitioner and the other person filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was granted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The MeTC reversed the City Prosecutor's ruling and set aside the recommendation to file an Information. An Order granting the withdrawal of the Information was issued by the MeTC.

However, the respondent, through a private prosecutor, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the MeTC's Order granting the withdrawal of the Information. The MeTC granted the motion for reconsideration and found probable cause to indict the petitioner and the other person.

Petitioner and the other person filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC, seeking to enjoin the MeTC from proceeding with the case. The RTC ruled that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in reviving and reinstating the criminal case without the concurrence or conformity of the public prosecutor. The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the private prosecutor had the right to file a motion for reconsideration without the conformity or concurrence of the public prosecutor.

Petitioner and the other person filed a Motion to Expunge the respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, alleging a violation of the 3-day notice rule for motions and the lack of MCLE Compliance of the respondent's counsel. The RTC denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, ruling that the motion for reconsideration was defective due to the failure to comply with the 3-day notice rule.

The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal, but the RTC disapproved it for not being perfected within the reglementary period. The respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, assailing the RTC's Order. The CA granted the petition and directed the RTC to transmit the entire records of the case.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the notice of hearing in respondent's motion for reconsideration was served in compliance with the Rules of Court.

  2. Whether the trial court should have reset the hearing on the motion for reconsideration despite the failure of the petitioner to receive the notice of hearing on time.

  3. Whether personal service and filing is a mandatory requirement under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

  4. Whether the respondent satisfactorily explained why he made use of registered mail instead of personal service.

  5. Whether or not the respondent violated the three-day rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.

  6. Whether or not a defective motion tolls the running period to appeal from a judgment or final order.

RULING:

  1. The notice of hearing in respondent's motion for reconsideration was not served in compliance with the Rules of Court. The petitioner was not able to receive the notice of hearing at least three days before the scheduled hearing, as required by the rules. Sending a registered mail is not sufficient to ensure timely receipt. The respondent should have personally served the notice of hearing, considering that their offices are both located in the National Capital Region.

  2. The trial court was not obligated to reset the hearing on the motion for reconsideration. While it would have been more prudent for the court to reschedule the hearing to determine whether the motion had been served on the petitioner, the rules do not require the court to do so. Technicalities should not stand in the way of resolving the rights and obligations of the parties, but it ultimately falls on the party who filed the motion to ensure proper service and compliance with the rules.

  3. Yes, personal service and filing is a mandatory requirement under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Resort to other modes of service and filing is allowed only when personal service or filing is not practicable, and must be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with.

  4. No, the respondent did not satisfactorily explain why he made use of registered mail instead of personal service.

  5. The RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that the respondent violated the three-day rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.

  6. A defective motion does not toll the running period to appeal from a judgment or final order.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A notice of hearing must be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three days before the date of the hearing, as mandated by Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.

  • Sending a registered mail does not guarantee timely receipt and compliance with the rules.

  • While it would be more prudent for the court to reschedule a hearing if there are issues with the service of a motion, the rules do not require the court to do so. Technicalities should not prevent a full and equitable resolution of the rights and obligations of the parties.

  • Personal service and filing are preferred over other modes of service and filing in order to expedite action or resolution on pleadings, motions, or other papers.

  • The use of other modes of service or filing should only be resorted to when personal service or filing is not practicable and must be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable.

  • Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and should be strictly followed, unless there are justifiable causes and circumstances for the relaxation of the rules.

  • Litigants must have equal footing in a court of law; the rules are laid down for the benefit of all and should not be made dependent upon a suitor's own time and bidding.

  • The three-day rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court must be followed, except for the most persuasive reasons when it may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of their thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.

  • A defective motion does not toll the running period to appeal from a judgment or final order.