NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF SAUDI

ARABIA v COURT OF APPEALS

1. WON the MR should be granted even though there was a lack of

notice of hearing.
PROVISION:

Petitioners: National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia

Respondents: Court of Appeals, Philippine Banking Corporation
Ponente: Carpio Morales, J.
Doctrine: 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.
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.
FACTS: (Sorry ang lala ng facts nung case)
1. National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia (NCBSA) filed a case
against Philippine Banking Corporation in the RTC of Makati on
December 4, 1985 to recover the duplication in the payment of the
proceeds of a letter of credit NCBSA has issued because both the
head office and regional office of PBC collected the proceeds of the
LOC.
2. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of NCBSA. PBC filed a motion
for reconsideration, however there was no notice of hearing. NCBSA
filed a manifestation pointing out the lack of notice of hearing.
3. On September 27, 1993, NCBSA filed a Motion for Writ of Execution
of the decision of the trial court. On even date, PBC filed a Motion to
Set Motion for Reconsideration for Hearing.
4. It was denied by the RTC.
5. PBC filed another motion for reconsideration stating that the lack of
notice was merely due to an honest mistake by counsel.
6. RTC denied the MR stating that there was no compelling reason to
warrant a liberal construction on the rules of motion.
7. PBC appealed to the CA which first affirmed the RTC. On PBCs
Motion for Reconsideration, however, the Court of Appeals, by
Amended Decision of March 8, 1996, set aside its February 27, 1995
Decision and granted PBCs Petition for Certiorari and directed the
trial court to resolve PBCs Motion for Reconsideration (of the trial
courts August 24, 1993 Decision.
8. The CA stated that to deny the MR is too harsh an application of
procedural rules especially so when petitioner has filed a motion to
set the motion for reconsideration for hearing and had furnished
private respondent a copy of the motion, a fact which is not denied
by the latter.
ISSUES:

Rule 37 of the Rules of Court

Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
RULING + RATIO:
1. No. The Motion for Reconsideration was merely Pro Forma.
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 PBCs 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
PBCs 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
courts resolutions.
The requirement of notice in this kind of motion is
mandatory. The Motion for Reconsideration thus remained a
mere scrap of paper which deserved no consideration.
The Motion for Reconsideration was of PBC was only a rehash
of its arguments raised during trial before the RTC, namely:
prescription
laches
lack of double payment
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The
Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 8, 1996 is SET
ASIDE and the Resolutions of the Regional Trial Court declaring the Motion

for Reconsideration filed by the Philippine Banking Corporation as pro forma

is REINSTATED.