Cruz v. CA

Facts:

The City Prosecutor of Manila charged petitioner with the crime of "Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document" before the Manila RTC. After trial on the merits, the trial court acquitted the petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt. In the same decision, the trial court rendered judgment on the civil aspect of the case, ordering the return to the surviving heirs of the parcel of land located in Bulacan.

On January 28, 1994, petitioner received a copy of the decision. On February 10, 1994, petitioner filed by registered mail an MR dated February 7, 1994, assailing the trial court’s ruling on the civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner furnished the City Prosecutor a copy of the motion by registered mail but was denied.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the CA to nullify the two assailed orders of the trial court. Petitioner also asked the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to resolve her motion for reconsideration of the decision dated February 7, 1994. CA denied the petition.

Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether petitioner’s motion for reconsideration dated February 7, 1994 complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 6, Rule 15 on proof of service.

Held:

The first issue is whether petitioner’s motion for reconsideration complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 6, Rule 15 on proof of service. Petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s finding that the City Prosecutor was not duly and timely furnished with petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of February 7, 1994.

Petitioner asserts that both copies of the motion for reconsideration were sent to the trial court and the City Prosecutor by registered mail on February 10, 1994. Petitioner relies on jurisprudence that the date of mailing is the date of filing, arguing that the date of mailing of both motions was on February 10, 1994. Petitioner maintains that the motion was properly filed within the 15-day period, citing the registry return card which shows actual receipt on February 22, 1994 by the City Prosecutor of a copy of the motion.

The Court of Appeals, noting that petitioner received a copy of the decision on January 28, 1994, stated that petitioner had until February 12, 1994 to appeal the decision or file a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner, by filing a motion for reconsideration without any proof of service, merely filed a scrap of paper and not a motion for reconsideration. Hence, the reglementary period of petitioner to appeal continued to run and lapsed after the 15-day period, making the trial court’s decision final and executory.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner patently failed to comply with the mandatory requirements on proof of service insofar as the public prosecutor is concerned. The Court has stressed time and again that non-compliance with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 is a fatal defect. The well-settled rule is that a motion which fails to comply with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 is a useless piece of paper. If filed, such motion is not entitled to judicial cognizance and does not stop the running of the reglementary period for filing the requisite pleading.

Section 6 of Rule 15 reads:

"SEC. 6. — Proof of service to be filed with motions. — No motion shall be acted upon by the court, without proof of service of the notice thereof." (Emphasis supplied)

From the language of the rule, proof of service is mandatory. Without such proof of service to the adverse party, a motion is nothing but an empty formality deserving no judicial cognizance.

Section 13 of Rule 13 further requires that:

"SEC. 13. Proof of Service. — . . . If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee." 16 (Emphasis supplied)

If service is by registered mail, proof of service consists of the affidavit of the person mailing and the registry receipt, both of which must be appended to the motion. Absent one or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of service.

In the instant case, an examination of the record shows that petitioner received a copy of the trial court’s decision of January 17, 1994 on January 28, 1994. Within the reglementary period to appeal, petitioner filed on February 10, 1994, by registered mail, a motion for reconsideration. However, petitioner failed to attach both the affidavit and the registry receipt to the motion for reconsideration as required by the Rules.

The defect of the motion is apparent on its face. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper as it did not contain the required proof of service.