In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Malinias, the Supreme Court reiterated the strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly concerning the timely filing of appeals. The Court emphasized that failure to comply with mandatory requirements, such as providing a proper notice of hearing in a motion for reconsideration, can render a judgment final and executory, thus foreclosing any further remedies. This case serves as a cautionary tale for litigants to diligently observe procedural rules to protect their rights and interests.

Lost in Translation: When a Defective Motion Derails Justice

The case originated from a vehicular collision between a Victory Liner bus and an Isuzu truck owned by Michael Malinias. Malinias filed a complaint for damages against Victory Liner and its bus driver in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet. After the bus driver was dropped as a defendant, the trial proceeded against Victory Liner alone.

Victory Liner’s initial counsel withdrew, and the company failed to appear for the presentation of its evidence. Consequently, the MTC considered Victory Liner to have waived its right to present evidence and submitted the case for judgment, ruling in favor of Malinias. Victory Liner, through new counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but its Notice of Hearing contained a fatal defect. Instead of specifying the date and time of the hearing, it merely stated that the hearing would be at a time convenient to the court and the parties. The MTC correctly ruled that this defective notice did not comply with Section 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, rendering the motion a mere scrap of paper that did not suspend the period to appeal.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that a motion for reconsideration lacking a proper notice of hearing is a pro forma motion, which does not toll the reglementary period for appeal. As stated in People v. Court of Appeals:

Under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 15, the notice of hearing shall be addressed to the parties concerned and shall specify the time and date of the hearing of the motion; no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party are not affected.

Given this precedent, the MTC declared its earlier judgment final and executory. Victory Liner’s subsequent attempts to challenge the judgment, including filing a Petition for Relief from Judgment and a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), were unsuccessful. The RTC upheld the MTC’s decision, emphasizing the finality of the judgment.

Undeterred, Victory Liner filed a “Petition for Certiorari to Annul Judgment” with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the CA dismissed the petition outright due to a defective Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping. The CA noted that the verification and certification were signed by Victory Liner’s counsel, not by an authorized representative of the corporation. Furthermore, the CA found that Victory Liner’s claim of extrinsic fraud had already been raised in its earlier Petition for Relief from Judgment, violating Section 2 of Rule 47. This section states that “extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground (for annulment of judgment) if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.”

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the CA erred in dismissing the petition based on the defective Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping. The Court emphasized that Victory Liner’s counsel had been authorized by the Board of Directors to file the petition, as evidenced by a Certificate of Authority submitted shortly after the petition was filed. However, the Court ultimately upheld the CA’s dismissal, finding that Victory Liner had committed a series of procedural missteps that warranted the denial of its petition.

One critical point of contention was the remedies available to Victory Liner after the MTC declared its Motion for Reconsideration a “mere scrap of paper.” The Supreme Court highlighted two potential avenues: a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 and a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. A certiorari action would challenge the MTC’s denial of the Motion for Reconsideration based on grave abuse of discretion. A petition for relief from judgment, on the other hand, would seek to allow the appeal despite the judgment’s finality, arguing that fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence prevented Victory Liner from taking an appeal. Unfortunately, Victory Liner failed to pursue either of these remedies in a timely manner.

The Court underscored the significance of complying with procedural rules, stating:

If the consequences for pursuing the wrong remedial tack in this case seem harsh, it should be remembered that there is no innate right to appeal. Appeal is a statutory right which may be exercised within the prescribed limits. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a rational and orderly method by which appeal can be pursued, and even contingency remedial measures if appeal could no longer be timely pursued.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied Victory Liner’s petition, emphasizing that its persistent procedural errors and failure to avail itself of available remedies led to the dismissal of its case. This case serves as a stern reminder to litigants to meticulously adhere to procedural rules and seek timely and appropriate legal remedies.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Victory Liner’s failure to comply with procedural rules, particularly regarding the notice of hearing for its Motion for Reconsideration, warranted the dismissal of its appeal.
What is a pro forma motion?	A pro forma motion is one that does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Rules of Court, such as failing to specify the date and time of hearing. It is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not toll the period to appeal.
What remedies were available to Victory Liner after the MTC declared its Motion for Reconsideration a “mere scrap of paper”?	Victory Liner could have filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 or a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. These remedies would have allowed Victory Liner to challenge the MTC’s ruling or seek to allow the appeal despite the judgment’s finality.
What is a petition for certiorari?	A petition for certiorari is a special civil action filed to challenge a lower court’s decision based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
What is a petition for relief from judgment?	A petition for relief from judgment is a remedy available to a party who, through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal.
What is the significance of the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping?	The Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping are required to ensure that the pleading is filed in good faith and that the party has not engaged in forum shopping. It must be signed by the party, not the counsel, unless there is a valid reason for the counsel to sign.
What is extrinsic fraud?	Extrinsic fraud refers to fraud that prevents a party from having a fair trial or presenting their case fully to the court. However, it cannot be used as a ground for annulment of judgment if it was already availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
What is the prescriptive period for filing an action for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud?	The action must be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud.

Victory Liner v. Malinias underscores the importance of procedural compliance in Philippine litigation. Litigants must diligently adhere to the Rules of Court and seek appropriate legal remedies to protect their rights. Failure to do so may result in the loss of their case, regardless of the merits of their substantive claims.

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: Victory Liner, Inc. v. Malinias, G.R. No. 151170, May 29, 2007