Case Digest: NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF SAUDI ARABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION

NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF SAUDI ARABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION

437 SCRA 1 (2003), THIRD DIVISION

National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia (NCBSA) filed a case against respondent Philippine Banking Corporation (PBC) to recover the duplicate payment of the proceeds of a letter of credit issued by NCBSA in view of the fact that both the head office and Makati branch of PBC collected the proceeds.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati ruled in favor of NCBSA. PBC filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The motion, however, did not contain a notice of hearing. PBC tried to cure the defect by subsequently filing a Motion to Set “Motion for Reconsideration” for Hearing nine days after the period for filing the Notice of Appeal had expired which was vigorously opposed by NCBSA.

NCBSA called for the strict application of the Philippines‘ rules of procedure to prevent any more delay in the disposition of the case, which has been pending for more than seventeen years. On the other hand, PBC invokes a just and fair determination of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the unrippled doctrine that a motion filed without the requisite notice of hearing may be cured by subsequently filing a motion to set “the motion” for hearing

HELD:

The requirement of notice under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 in connection with Section 2, Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court is mandatory. The absence of a notice of hearing is fatal and, in cases of motions to reconsider a decision, the running of the period to appeal is not tolled by their filing or pendency. In the case at bar, it is not disputed that PBC‘s Motion for Reconsideration of the August 24, 1993 decision of the trial court did not contain the requisite notice of hearing.

The motion for reconsideration, however, being fatally defective for lack of notice of hearing, cannot be cured by a belated filing of a notice of hearing. More so in the case at bar where the Motion to Set the “Motion for Reconsideration” was filed after the expiration of the period for filing an appeal.

PBC‘s appeal for justice and fairness does not lie, however, there being nothing on record to show that it has been a victim of injustice or unfairness. On the contrary, as found by the Court of Appeals in its original decision, PBC had the opportunity to participate in the trial and present its defense and had actually made full use of the remedies under our rules of procedure. More importantly, there was no oppressive exercise of judicial authority that would call for the annulment of the trial court‘s resolutions.