Case 5.docx

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.