De los Reyes vs Sandigangbayan FACTS This is a petition for review on the decision of the Sandiganbayan affirming the decision

of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City convicting the appellant herein of violating the provisions of the Property Tax Code. The basis of the conviction is the performance of the appellant of his official function, taking advantage of his official position in revising the statements of assessment made by the office of the City Assessor. The defense presented Exhibit 5 an excerpt of the Real Property Tax Records Management Manual issued by the Department of Finance authorizing the City Assessor to reassess properties of taxpayers who request for such assessment. The Ombudsman found the appellant administratively liable. The appellant had also been criminally charged with the Sandiganbayan for the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The trial court convicted the accused for violation of the Property Tax Code, and affirmed its decision when an appeal was made. The administrative case was appealed to this court, the court rendered a decision finding the appellant administratively liable. The appellant filed a petition for review in the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Property Tax Code. The Sandiganbayan acquitted the appellant for the charge of violating the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Sandiganbayan denied the appeal for review of De los Reyes and affirmed the decision of the RTC. The petitioners received a copy of the Decision and filed a timely motion for reconsideration. However, as reasoned by the Sandiganbayan, since the motion was not set for hearing, the Sandiganbayan declared that the motion was a mere scrap of paper; consequently, the period to appeal has not been suspended, its decision had become final and executory. ISSUE Whether or not the decision of the Sandiganbayan to deny the motion for reconsideration for lack of hearing meritorious.

RULING The contention of the Office of the Special Prosecutor citing Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure declaring mandatory the setting of a motion for reconsideration is not applicable in the case at bar. The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan failed to provide the legal basis for denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of motion for hearing. The Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan has no rule which requires a movant to set such a motion for hearing. Under such Rules, the Rules of Civil Procedure shall only apply in the absence of a similar provision in the graft courts Revised Internal Rules. Under the last paragraph of Section 1, Rule VII of the Revised Internal Rules of The Sandiganbayan, the provisions of Section 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to motions in appealed cases. As provided from these provisions, petitioners were not obliged to set for hearing their motion for reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan decision. The Sandiganbayan acted contrary to its own rules.