CLEOFE NORRIS v. Judge JOSE PARENTELA, JR.

GR NO. 143216, 27 February 2003

QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:

On April 4, 1977, private respondents purchased a lot from the

government. However, through fraud, spouses Kalugdan had the title
over the lot cancelled, and a new title was issued in their name. They then
sold the lot to petitioner Norris. On August 27, 1997, private respondents
sued for the annulment/cancellation of titles and damages with the RTC
against Norris. Summons was served upon Norris through substituted
service. Norris failed to answer, and RTC declared her in default and
decided the case against her.

On April 30, 1999, Norris, assisted by a neophyte lawyer, filed a

petition for relief from judgment. However, this petition was not certified
against forum shopping. RTC dismissed the petition. Norris moved for
reconsideration. However, this motion was only addressed to the clerk of
court and not to all parties. The motion was denied by RTC.

On November 8, 1999, Norris filed a petition for certiorari with the

CA under Rule 65. However, petitioner did not attach a certified true
copy of the orders appealed from, nor did it show the material dates of the
receipt of the said orders. Thus, CA dismissed the petition and the
subsequent motion to reconsider.

ISSUE:

Was the motion to reconsider the RTC decision proper?

RULINGS:

No. Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that

notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned. Notice
addressed to the clerk of court and not to the parties does not suffice as
notice to all. A motion that does not contain a notice of hearing to the
adverse party is nothing but a mere scrap of paper and the clerk of court
does not have the duty to accept it, much less to bring it to the attention of
the presiding judge.

The failure to comply with these requirements was fatal the case of
Norris. While in certain instances, the Court allows a relaxation in the
application of the rules, it never intended to forge a weapon for erring
litigants to violate the rules with impunity. While it is true that litigation
is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be
prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an
orderly and speedy administration of justice.

DISPOSITION:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

The assailed resolutions dated December 6, 1999 and May 11, 2000 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55692 are AFFIRMED.