808 Phil. 70
LEONEN, J.:
After going over the same, the Court in the interest of substantial justice resolves to GRANT the aforesaid Motion, supra, however, the private complainant is hereby admonished to be ready to present her evidence to obviate any further delay in the proceedings of this case.Valderrama moved to have the July 16,2012 Order reconsidered. The Metropolitan Trial Court denied reconsideration in its Order[13] dated August 31, 2012:
ACCORDINGLY, the Order of April 12, 2012, declaring the prosecution to have waived its right to present additional evidence is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE. Let the continuation of the presentation of prosecution's evidence be set for the last time on November 22, 2012 at 8:30 in the morning previously scheduled date for presentation of defense evidence. In the event the private complainant failed to adduce further evidence on the aforesaid date, the prosecution shall formally offer its evidence in open court.
The defense will be given another date for the presentation of its evidence on the aforesaid date of the hearing to insure the availability of the calendar of both counsels.
SO ORDERED.[12]
Before this Court is the Motion for Reconsideration (re: Order dated July 16, 2012) filed by the accused, through counsel, there being no cogent reason for this Court to disturb the questioned order, the same is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.Valderrama filed a petition for certiorari before Branch 216, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City. In its Decision[15] dated May 3, 2013, the Regional Trial Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the lower court and dismissed the petition for certiorari.[16]
As earlier ruled by this Court, continuation of the presentation of prosecution evidence shall proceed as scheduled on November 22, 2012 at 8:30 in the morning which is intransferrable and with a warning that in the event the private complainant failed to adduce further evidence, the prosecution shall ma[k]e an oral offer of its evidence in open court.
SO ORDERED.[14]
We grant the Petition. The respondent's Motion to Reconsider was fatally defective and should have been denied by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
- The Motion did not bear the conformity of the public prosecutor in violation of Section 5 Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure requiring all criminal actions to be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor;
- It does not contain any notice addressed to the accused in violation of Section 5 Rule 15 Rules of Court;
- It does not indicate the date and time it was to be heard by the court in violation of Section 5 Rule 15 of the Rules of Court;
- It is filed beyond the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period required under Section 1 Rule 37 Rules of Court;
- It does not contain a statement of material dates showing that it is filed within fifteen (15) days from its receipt by the private prosecutor;
- It is neither verified nor accompanied by affidavits in support of the factual allegations that they contain; and
- It does not deny that private respondent refused to cooperate with the public prosecutor and present evidence at the hearing on April 12, 2012; neither did it offer any explanation or justification for such refusal to cooperate.[40]
Section 5. Who Must Prosecute Criminal Actions. — All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority shall cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court.In Laude v. Ginez-Jabalde,[41] this Court ruled that the required conformity of the public prosecutor was not a mere superfluity and was necessary to pursue a criminal action.[42] A private party does not have the legal personality to prosecute the criminal aspect of a case, as it is the People of the Philippines who are the real party in interest.[43] The criminal case must be under the direction and control of the public prosecutor.[44] Thus, when the public prosecutor does not give his or her conformity to the pleading of a party, the party does not have the required legal personality to pursue the case.[45]
GREETINGS:This notice did not comply with Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court:
Please submit the foregoing Motion for immediate consideration and resolution of the Honorable Court upon receipt hereof.
City of Parañaque for Quezon City
May 7, 2012[49]
Section 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.These requirements are mandatory.[50] Except for motions which the court may act on without prejudice to the adverse party, all motions must set a hearing.[51] This includes motions for reconsideration.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
Section 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
In Pojas v. Gozo-Dadole we had occasion to rule on the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration without any notice of hearing tolls the running of the prescriptive period. In Pojas, petitioner received copy of the decision in Civil Case No. 3430 of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran on 15 April 1986. The decision being adverse to him petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. For failing to mention the date when the motion was to be resolved as required in Sec. 5, Rule 15, of the Rules of Court, the motion for reconsideration was denied. A second motion for reconsideration met the same fate. On 2 July 1986 petitioner filed a notice of appeal but the same was denied for being filed out of time as "the motion for reconsideration which the Court ruled as pro forma did not stop the running of the 15-day period to appeal."The intention behind the notice requirements is to avoid surprises and to provide the adverse party a chance to study the motion and to argue meaningfully against it before the court's resolution.[56]
In resolving the issue of whether there was grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's notice of appeal, this Court ruled —Section 4 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court requires that notice of motion be served by the movant on all parties concerned at least three (3) days before its hearing. Section 5 of the same Rule provides that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion. A motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper which the clerk has no right to receive and the court has no authority to act upon. Service of copy of a motion containing notice of the time and place of hearing of said motion is a mandatory requirement and the failure of the movant to comply with said requirements renders his motion fatally defective.....
In In re: Almacen defendant lost his case in the lower court. His counsel then filed a motion for reconsideration but did not notify the adverse counsel of the time and place of hearing of said motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the motion for reason that "the motion for reconsideration dated July 5, 1966 does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing thereof and is, therefore a useless piece of paper which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, consequently, the appeal was perfected out of time." When the case was brought to us, we reminded counsel for the defendant that —As a law practitioner who was admitted to the bar as far back as 1941, Atty. Almacen knew — or ought to have known — that a motion for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of (sic) appeal, the movant must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party . . . but also notify the adverse party of the time and place of hearing. . .Also, in Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Bath Construction and Company we ruled —The written notice referred to evidently is that prescribed for motions in general by Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 (formerly Rule 26), which provide that such notice shall state the time and place of hearing and shall be served upon all the parties concerned at least three days in advance. And according to Section 6 of the same Rule no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of such notice. Indeed it has been held that in such a case the motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper. The reason is obvious; unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing the court would have no way to determine whether that party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition.In fine, the abovecited cases confirm that the requirements laid down in Sec. 5 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.[55] (Citations omitted, emphases supplied)
Section 1. Grounds of and Period for Filing Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration. — Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party: . . .The period for taking an appeal is 15 days.[59] Thus, respondent had 15 days to file her Motion to Reconsider. This period is non-extendible.[60] Failing to question an order or decision within the period prescribed by law renders the order or decision final and binding.[61]
The petitioners ought to be reminded that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[67] (Citation omitted)There is grave abuse of discretion when there is a refusal to act in contemplation of law or a gross disregard of the Constitution, law, or existing jurisprudence.[68] In such a case, there is a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction.[69]