In Lamberto Casalla v. People, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of strictly adhering to the rules regarding the notice of hearing in motions for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that failure to include a proper notice renders the motion pro forma, which does not suspend the period for filing an appeal. This means that those seeking reconsideration of a court’s decision must ensure their motions contain all the necessary elements, including a correctly noticed hearing, or risk losing their right to appeal. This ruling serves as a reminder to legal practitioners and litigants alike of the critical importance of procedural compliance in preserving legal rights.

Dishonored Checks and a Missed Deadline: When Procedure Dictates Outcome

The case stemmed from Lamberto Casalla’s conviction for violating the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22). He had issued two checks to Milagros Estevanes to cover his wife’s debt, but both checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds. After being convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasig City, Casalla appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the lower court’s decision. Dissatisfied, Casalla filed a motion for reconsideration, but it lacked a notice of hearing. His subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was denied, primarily because the defective motion for reconsideration did not toll the period for filing an appeal.

At the heart of the matter was whether Casalla’s motion for reconsideration, lacking a notice of hearing, effectively stopped the clock on the period to appeal. The Supreme Court, in affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision, held firmly that it did not. The Court pointed to established jurisprudence emphasizing the mandatory nature of the notice of hearing requirement. A motion for reconsideration without such notice is considered a mere scrap of paper, a pro forma motion, with no legal effect on the appeal period. This principle is rooted in the need for orderly procedure and ensuring that all parties have adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

The Rules of Court are explicit in requiring a notice of hearing for motions. Section 2, Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states:

SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof.—The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefor, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.

A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period of appeal.

The absence of this notice is not a mere technicality; it is a substantive defect that renders the motion ineffective. Casalla’s attempt to rectify the situation by filing a second motion for reconsideration was also futile. The rules explicitly prohibit second motions for reconsideration, as stated in Section 5, Rule 37:

SEC. 5. Second motion for new trial. No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order.

Building on this principle, the Court rejected Casalla’s argument that the notice of hearing requirement should not apply because the RTC was acting in its appellate jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the Rules of Court apply to all courts unless the Supreme Court provides otherwise. Regional Trial Courts, even when exercising appellate jurisdiction, are not exempt from conducting hearings when necessary to ensure due process. This clarifies that procedural rules apply uniformly across different levels of courts, reinforcing the importance of compliance at every stage of litigation.

Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed the procedural misstep in Casalla’s challenge to the RTC’s issuance of a writ of execution. Instead of filing a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Court of Appeals, Casalla should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This distinction is crucial because Rule 41, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly states that “No appeal may be taken from: a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration; (f) An order of execution”. The rule continues:

In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.

This procedural error further underscored the importance of understanding and adhering to the specific rules governing different types of appeals and remedies. Here is a table summarizing the possible remedies:

Scenario	Proper Remedy
Denial of Motion for Reconsideration	Special Civil Action for Certiorari (Rule 65)
Order of Execution	Special Civil Action for Certiorari (Rule 65)
Final Judgment on the Merits	Appeal (Rule 41 or Rule 42, depending on the court)

By failing to follow the correct procedure, Casalla effectively lost his opportunity to challenge the writ of execution. The Court’s decision underscores the significance of choosing the right legal remedy and adhering to the prescribed procedures to effectively protect one’s rights.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the motion for reconsideration filed by Casalla, which lacked a notice of hearing, effectively tolled the period for filing an appeal.
What is a ‘pro forma’ motion?	A ‘pro forma’ motion is one that is defective in form, often lacking essential requirements such as a notice of hearing. It has no legal effect and does not suspend the running of the prescriptive period.
Why is a notice of hearing important?	A notice of hearing is crucial because it informs the parties involved of the date, time, and place of the hearing, ensuring they have an opportunity to be heard and present their arguments. This adheres to the principles of due process.
Can a second motion for reconsideration be filed?	No, the Rules of Court explicitly prohibit the filing of a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order.
What is the correct procedure to question an order of execution?	The correct procedure to question an order of execution is to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 45.
Do the Rules of Court apply to all courts?	Yes, the Rules of Court apply to all courts in the Philippines, unless otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.
What is the consequence of non-compliance with procedural rules?	Non-compliance with procedural rules, such as the requirement for a notice of hearing, can result in the loss of legal rights, including the right to appeal.
What law did Casalla violate?	Casalla was convicted of violating the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) for issuing checks that were dishonored due to insufficient funds.

In conclusion, Casalla v. People serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal practice. Failure to comply with requirements like the notice of hearing can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the loss of one’s right to appeal. This case reinforces the need for meticulous attention to detail and a thorough understanding of the Rules of Court.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Lamberto Casalla, vs. People of the Philippines, and Milagros S. Estevanes, G.R. No. 138855, October 29, 2002