You are on page 1of 2

Topic GENERAL PROVISIONS

Case No. G.R. No. 138855 / October 29, 2002


Case Name CASALLA vs. PEOPLE
Ponente QUISUMBING, j.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Petitioner Lamberto Casalla issued 2 checks in payment of the obligation of his wife to private
respondent Milagros Santos-Estevanes. However, these checks were dishonored by the bank (Bank of
Commerce) for insufficiency of funds.
 Milagros filed 2 criminal complaints for violation of BP 22 before the MTC of Pasig.
 MTC convicted Lamberto of the crime charged on 2 counts.
 Lamberto appealed to RTC  affirmed the MTC’s decision
 Lamberto filed an MR on Feb. 8, 1995. But on Feb. 9, the RTC denied it because a notice of hearing was
absent.
 Lamberto filed a second MR.  DENIED
 Milagros filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.  GRANTED
 A writ of execution was issued directing the deputy sheriff to execute the judgment.
 Lamberto appealed via petition for review before the CA which the court denied.
o The petition did not contain statement of material dates showing the timeliness of the petition.
o It was filed out of time because the motion to reconsider the decision of the trial court did not
contain a notice of hearing. Hence, it did not interrupt the period for filing the petition before
the CA, and the period had lapsed before the petition was filed.
o Second MR is a prohibited pleading and it was also filed out of time.
 In his appeal to the SC, Lamberto argued that:
o The requirement of a notice of hearing does not apply to the MR filed before the RTC since
such court was acting only in its appellate jurisdiction, the proceedings therein being summary
in nature.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the CA erred in denying NO
the petition for review and
the subsequent MR? 1. SC noted that Lamberto received a copy of the RTC decision on Feb.
1, 1995. From that date, he had 15 days to file an MR. On Feb. 8, he
did file an MR but it lacked a notice of hearing.
2. SC held that the requirements laid down in the Rules of Court, that
the notice of hearing shall be directed to the parties concerned and
shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion, are
mandatory.
o If not religiously complied with, they render the motion pro
forma and it will not toll the running of the prescriptive
period.
3. SC also said that petitioner’s argument that the requirement of notice
of hearing did not apply to the MR filed before the RTC is wrong
because the Rules of Court apply to all courts, except as otherwise
provided by the SC.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision dated November 17, 1998 and the
resolution dated May 25, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37031 are AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.