Republic of the
Supreme Court
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL |
|
G.R. No. 149236 |
|
BANK, |
|
|
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
HON. JOSE G. PANEDA, in |
|
|
|
his capacity as Presiding |
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
Judge of the RTC, Br. 67, |
|
Chairperson, |
|
CONSOLACION CHAN, |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
ELIZABETH CAPULLA, |
|
CALLEJO,
SR., |
|
CAROLINE REYES, |
|
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and |
|
BERNARDO DE VERA, |
|
*NACHURA, JJ. |
|
JULITA, LORNA, EDNA, |
|
|
|
RENE, MARITES, MARICAR, |
|
|
|
RICARDO, JR., and ROLANDO, |
|
|
|
all surnamed DE VERA, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
February 14, 2007 |
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court questioning the
Decision[1]
dated April 20, 2001, promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 51820, which affirmed in toto the Order dated
February 18, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, Bauang, La Union, docketed as Civil Case No. 594-BG; and
the CA Resolution[2]
dated July 31, 2001 which denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
The antecedents of the case, as found
by the RTC and upheld by the CA, are as follows:
x x x [O]n October 9, 1985, private
respondent Bernardo de Vera, bought a parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration
No. 1685 from petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB for brevity) and the
former signed a “Contract of Sale with Option to Resell” prepared by the
latter.
Shortly
after the sale, petitioner PNB placed in possession respondent de Vera who
started to introduce improvements thereon such as the construction of roads and
putting up of concrete fence. However,
respondent de Vera was evicted by respondents Consolacion
Chan, Elizabeth Capulla and Caroline Reyes.
Thus,
an action for quieting of title and damages was filed by plaintiffs-respondents
Chan, et al. against Bernardo de Vera and his spouse, the latter filed a
third-party complaint against third-party defendant (now petitioner) PNB. Both the de Veras
and PNB did not contest plaintiffs-respondents’ claim of possession and
ownership over the questioned property, thus, the respondent judge gave his
“imprimatur to plaintiffs’ claim of the rights of possession, under claim of ownership
over the disputed parcel of land described” in the complaint. After trial on the merits, respondent Judge
rendered his decision, the decretal portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Court hereby renders judgment:
a) Declaring
the plaintiffs [Chan, et al.] to be lawful possessors and owners over the
litigated lot described in their Complaint in the above-entitled case.
b) Ordering
the third party defendant (PNB) to pay the value of the lot sold to the third
party plaintiffs (DE VERAS) under the Contract of Sale With Option to Resell
dated P1,000.00 per square
meter for the entire 33,873 square meters plus the sum of P20,000.00
spent for documentation or registration of the contract of sale, with legal
interest thereon at the rate of 12% per month from the date of this judgment
until full payment thereof to the DE VERAS.
c)
Condemning the
third party defendant (PNB) to pay the third party plaintiffs (DE VERAS) the
sum of P200,000.00 (sic) representing the value of the labor and
construction materials and improvements the latter introduced in the disputed
lot from
d)
Ordering the
third party defendant (PNB) to pay the third party plaintiffs (DE VERAS) the
amount of P50,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to the
sum of P10,000.00 as actual and litigation expenses and, to pay the
costs of this suit.
e)
Dismissing all
other claims and counterclaims which the parties may have against each in this
case for insufficiency of evidence.
SO
ORDERED.
Petitioner PNB filed a Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration x x x.
x x x x
[The
RTC] rendered the assailed Order of
Viewed from all the foregoing, the Court finds merit
in the plaintiffs’ motion for execution embodied in their opposition and, the
third-party plaintiffs De Vera’s Motion for Execution, meritorious, it
appearing that the third-party defendant PNB’s Motion
for New Trial and for Reconsideration, is pro forma, and, as such, it did not
suspend the running of the period of appeal, it having expired, or no appeal
having been perfected by PNB within the reglementary
period, this Court finds no alternative but to comply with its ministerial duty
to issue the corresponding Writ of Execution for the enforcement of its
decision of August 20, 1998.
WHEREFORE, the Court, finding the third-party defendant
PNB’s Motion for New Trial and for Reconsideration
dated December 2, 1998, as pro forma and, as such, did not toll the running of
the period of appeal, the same is hereby DENIED; consequently, the Decision of
this Court dated August 20, 1998, is now final and executory.
Let the corresponding Writ of Execution for the
enforcement and satisfaction of the said decision of
Be it noted also herein the Notice of Attorney’s Lien
filed by Atty. Benigno Puno,
counsel for the third-party plaintiff, Bernardo de Vera, which contains his
conformity thereto.
SO ORDERED.
Thus, the instant petition [under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court] with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction was filed [with the CA].
Petitioner
PNB raised the following ground in support of its petition:
RESPONDENT COURT COMMITED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR
AUTHORITY, AMOUNTING TO WANT OF JURISDICTION, IN DECLARING ITS DECISION OF
AUGUST 20, 1998 AS HAVING BEEN BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY NOTWITHSTANDING
PETITIONER’S TIMELY FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND RECONSIDERATION IS PRO FORMA, THEREBY DEPRIVING
PETITIONER OF ITS VALUABLE RIGHT TO APPEAL.
On
On
WHEREFORE,
the petition is hereby DISMISSED for having failed to show that grave abuse of
discretion and/or lack of jurisdiction had been committed by the respondent
court, and the assailed Order of
SO
ORDERED.[4]
In affirming the RTC Order, the CA
held that petitioner’s Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration (Motion) is pro forma, and, consequently, the said Motion
did not toll the running of the period for appeal and the decision thus
attained finality; that the documents proffered by the petitioner in the said
Motion, allegedly newly discovered evidence, are the same as those marked and
presented by the petitioner in its Pre-Trial Brief dated July 1, 1994; and that
the Motion failed to comply with Section 5 of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure which requires that the notice of hearing be directed to the
parties concerned.
Hence, the instant Petition on the
following grounds:
I.
The Court of Appeals has departed from the
accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings or has sanctioned such
departure by the Trial Court when it affirmed the trial court’s award of
excessive and unfounded damages of P33.8 Million against the Petitioner by way
of summary judgment.
II.
The Court of Appeals has departed from the
accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings or has sanctioned such
departure by the Trial Court when it affirmed the
III.
The Court of Appeals in affirming the trial
court’s decision has decided a question of
In its Memorandum, petitioner raises
the following issues:
I.
Whether or not the Decision of the Trial Court
has attained finality
II.
Whether or not the respondents de Veras are entitled to the payment of P33,873,000.00.
III.
The provisions of the Contract of
be respected.[6]
The
petition has merit.
The main question is whether
petitioner’s Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration is pro forma and, hence, it did not suspend the running of the period
for appeal.
In light of Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, the other issues cannot be passed upon by this Court since they require
a calibration of the findings of fact, a function reserved to the courts a quo.
In holding that petitioner’s Motion
for New Trial and Reconsideration is pro
forma, the CA reasoned that there was “nothing new in (petitioner’s) Motion
that would show any testimonial or documentary evidence, or provisions of law
to be contrary to such findings or conclusions of the lower court.” To support this point, the courts a quo found that the documents desired
to be presented, alleged by the petitioner to be “newly discovered,” are the
very same documents marked and presented by the petitioner as Exhibits “1” to
“24-A” in its Pre-Trial Brief dated July 1, 1994; and that to go over again the
same documents would be “an exercise of futility.”
The
subject Motion actually consists of two motions, a Motion for New Trial and a
Motion for Reconsideration. While the
Court agrees that the Motion for New Trial lacks merit for the reason that the
documents sought to be presented are not newly discovered evidence, the Court
does not agree that the Motion for Reconsideration is pro forma.
The Court is guided by the rulings in
Coquilla v. Commission on Elections,[7]
to wit:
x x x The mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the court does not make a motion pro forma; otherwise, the movant’s remedy would not be a reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some other remedy. But, as we have held in another case:
Among the ends to which a
motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to convince the court
that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to the law or the evidence;
and in doing so, the movant has to dwell of necessity
upon the issues passed upon by the court. If a motion for reconsideration may not discuss these issues, the
consequence would be that after a decision is rendered, the losing party would
be confined to filing only motions for reopening and new trial.
Indeed, in the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma, the motion was so held because (1) it was a second motion for reconsideration, or (2) it did not comply with the rule that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party was not given notice thereof. The 16-page motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the COMELEC en banc suffers from none of the foregoing defects, and it was error for the COMELEC en banc to rule that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was pro forma because the allegations raised therein are a mere “rehash” of his earlier pleadings or did not raise “new matters.” Hence, the filing of the motion suspended the running of the 30-day period to file the petition in this case, which, as earlier shown, was done within the reglementary period provided by law.[8] (Emphasis supplied)
and in Marina Properties Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[9]
thus:
Under our rules of procedure, a party adversely affected by a decision of a trial court may move for reconsideration thereof on the following grounds: (a) the damages awarded are excessive; (b) the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision; or (c) the decision is contrary to law. A motion for reconsideration interrupts the running of the period to appeal, unless the motion is pro forma. This is now expressly set forth in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 37, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
A motion for reconsideration based on the foregoing grounds is deemed pro forma if the same does not specify the findings or conclusions in the judgment which are not supported by the evidence or contrary to law, making express reference to the pertinent evidence or legal provisions. It is settled that although a motion for reconsideration may merely reiterate issues already passed upon by the court, that by itself does not make it pro forma and is immaterial because what is essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules. xxx.
x x x x
Where the circumstances of a case do not show an intent on the part of the pleader to merely delay the proceedings, and his motion reveals a bona fide effort to present additional matters or to reiterate his arguments in a different light, the courts should be slow to declare the same outright as pro forma. The doctrine relating to pro forma motions has a direct bearing upon the movant’s valuable right to appeal. It would be in the interest of justice to accord the appellate court the opportunity to review the decision of the trial court on the merits than to abort the appeal by declaring the motion pro forma, such that the period to appeal was not interrupted and had consequently lapsed. [10] (Emphasis supplied)
The averments found in the
Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioner point out specifically the
findings or conclusions in the judgment of the RTC which are not supported by
the evidence or which are contrary to law, and, moreover, the motion states
additional specific reasons for those grounds.
In brief, taken in its entirety, the
Motion for Reconsideration clearly attempts to substantiate the alleged errors
of the RTC: First, the Motion avers
that the petitioner’s counsel was not able to attend a single hearing because the
petitioner was not informed, via a subpoena or other notice, by the RTC; second, that due to Philippine National
Bank’s (PNB’s) lack of knowledge over the foregoing
proceedings, its counsel failed to include in the summary judgment proceeding
material evidence to prove its claims; third,
as a result, the hearings conducted in connection with the plaintiffs’
complaint were held between plaintiffs and respondent De Vera only; fourth, that since the petitioner was
not a party to the original complaint, the trial court must have taken it to
mean that it was up to respondent De Vera to present evidence as
successor-in-interest of the petitioner; fifth,
that petitioner, which was unable to participate in the proceedings, should
not be blamed for De Vera’s failure to present evidence; sixth, the petitioner precisely entered into a summary judgment
with third party plaintiff on the honest belief that it concerned solely the
controversy between the two third parties; in other words, had the petitioner been
given the opportunity to present its side of the controversy with the plaintiffs,
the decision could have been otherwise; seventh,
that the RTC, in view of the foregoing, had been led to make an entirely wrong
conclusion in its decision when it assumed that PNB had no title to, or right
in the lot under controversy; eighth, the petitioner never implied, under the
terms of the Contract to Sell with Option to Resell, that it had no title to,
or right in the lot in controversy; on the contrary, it had an absolute and
valid claim over the said property; ninth,
it was admitted in respondent De Vera’s position paper dated October 10,
1995 that the De Veras conducted an investigation of
ownership over the lot and were presented with various documents evidencing
ownership of the petitioner, and that respondent De Vera further investigated the
records of the Bureau of Lands and verified to be correct; hence, respondent De
Vera had the opportunity to know the condition of the property at the time of
the offer and had the opportunity to resell the property, but De Vera chose to
waive the same; tenth, respondent De
Vera was in no way deceived by the petitioner as to the condition of the property in question, since the innocent
non-disclosure of a fact does not affect the formation of the contract or
operate to discharge the parties from their agreement under the maxim caveat emptor: where the means of
knowledge are at hand and equally available to both parties, one will not be
heard to say that he has been deceived; eleventh,
the fact that respondent De Vera was not able to take immediate possession
of the lot in question cannot constitute deceit, because De Vera had the
opportunity, if she so desired, to examine the land; twelfth, since there is no actual controversy in the lot involved
in Civil Case Nos. 595 and 602, it being not a part sold to respondent De Vera
by the petitioner and claimed by the former, resulting in the dismissal of the same
cases by agreement of all the parties, the award of damages, therefore, had no
basis in fact and in law; thirteenth,
the award is patently and entirely unconscionable since the petitioner sold the
property for P35,000.00 and now, not only was it divested of its
ownership of the property, it is also ordered to pay the alleged value to De
Vera in the amount of P33,873,000.00 plus other expenses of more than P280,000.00
which are clearly not imputable to PNB; fourteenth,
thus, where De Vera failed to exercise or waived its option to resell, and, at
the same time maintains that the contract is not valid because he failed to
take possession of the property in question, such a situation will be tantamount
to leaving the buyer the unilateral power to determine whether such contract
should continue or not, which is prohibited by Article 1308 of the Civil Code; and
fifteenth, the petitioner is a
mortgagee in good faith, since at the time the mortgage covering said property had
been constituted, the petitioner was not aware of any flaw, if any, of the
title of the mortgagor, and, as such, the petitioner then had the legal right
to transfer ownership to De Vera.[11]
Important to note is that the
circumstances of the case as shown in the Motion for Reconsideration do not
show an intent on the part of the pleader to merely delay the proceedings, and
said Motion reveals a bona fide
effort to present additional matters or to reiterate its arguments in a
different light. Hence, the courts a
quo seriously erred in declaring the Motion for Reconsideration as pro forma.
The courts a quo also stress that the said Motion failed to comply with
Sections 5 and 7 of Rule 15, Rules of Court, to wit:
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.
Section
7. Motion
day. – Except for motions requiring immediate action, all motions shall be
scheduled for hearing on Friday afternoon, or if Friday is a non-working day,
in the afternoon the next working day.
The RTC held that petitioner’s Motion which was filed on
The foregoing conclusions are
incorrect.
The Court in Maturan v. Araula[12]
held:
As enjoined by the Rules of Court and the controlling jurisprudence, a liberal construction of the rules and the pleadings is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice.
The rule requiring notice to herein private
respondents as defendant
and intervenors in the lower court with respect to
the hearing of the motion filed by herein petitioner for the reconsideration of
the decision of respondent Judge, has
been substantially complied with. While the notice was addressed only to the
clerk of court, a copy of the said motion for reconsideration was furnished
counsel of herein private respondents, which fact is not denied by private
respondent. As a matter of fact, private respondents filed their opposition to
the said motion for reconsideration dated
x x x x
The motion for reconsideration of herein petitioner, while substantially based on the same grounds he invoked in his memorandum after the case was submitted for decision, is not pro forma as it points out specifically the findings or conclusions in the judgment which he claims are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law (City of Cebu v. Mendoza, L-26321, Feb. 25, 1975, 62 SCRA 440, 446), aside from stating additional specific reasons for the said grounds.[13] (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, even if the Motion may be
defective for failure to address the notice of hearing of said motion to the
parties concerned, the defect was cured by the court’s taking cognizance
thereof and the fact that the adverse party was otherwise notified of the
existence of said pleading.[14] There is substantial compliance with the foregoing
rules if a copy of the said motion for reconsideration was furnished to the counsel
of herein private respondents. [15]
In the present case, records reveal
that the notices in the Motion were addressed to the respective counsels of the
private respondents and they were duly furnished with copies of the same as
shown by the receipts signed by their staff or agents.
Consequently, the Court finds that
the petitioner substantially complied with the pertinent provisions of the
Rules of Court and existing jurisprudence on the requirements of motions and
pleadings.
Petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration is deemed to have been timely filed within the prescribed
period, viz:
1. Petitioner received on
2. The trial court denied the motion in
its Order dated February 18, 1999, a copy of which was received by petitioner
on
3. From receipt of the adverse order,
petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on
4. Without acting on the Notice of
Appeal, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution on
5. The petitioner then filed a Petition
for Certiorari with Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction before the CA on
6. On
Consequently, petitioner’s Notice of
Appeal should have been given due course.
In fine, the CA erred in affirming
the RTC Order dated
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals are hereby SET ASIDE. Another judgment is entered whereby the Order
dated February 18, 1999 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Bauang, La Union, in Civil Case No. 594-BG is SET ASIDE;
said Regional Trial Court is ordered to give due course to the appeal of
petitioner; and respondents and their agents are permanently enjoined from
enforcing the Order dated February 18, 1999 and the Writ of Execution dated
March 9, 1999.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
(On leave)
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I
F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* On leave.
[1]
Penned by Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria (now retired),
with Associate Justices Eloy R.
[2]
[3] Rollo, pp. 40-45.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] 434 Phil. 861 (2002).
[8]
[9] 355 Phil. 705 (1998).
[10]
[11] See CA rollo, pp. 63-72.
[12] 197 Phil. 583 (1982).
[13]
[14] Sun Un Giok v. Matusa, 101 Phil. 727, 734 (1957).
[15] CA rollo, pp. 73-74.