Motion for Reconsideration Before Sandiganbayan: No Hearing Required for Finality

The Supreme Court's ruling in De los Reyes v. Sandiganbayan clarifies a crucial point of procedure: a court decision does not become final and executory if a motion for reconsideration has been filed but not properly resolved. The case underscores that courts must follow their own procedural rules, and litigants must know when a hearing is—and is not—required for their motions.

The Case at a Glance

Gilberto de los Reyes and Cesar Concon were charged before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cebu City with violating the Property Tax Code for reassessing property values without authority from the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. The MTC convicted them, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed on appeal, and the Sandiganbayan likewise affirmed the conviction.

The petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan dismissed it as a "mere scrap of paper" because it was not set for hearing, declaring that its decision had become final and executory. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Applicable Rules: No Hearing Required

The Sandiganbayan's Revised Internal Rules govern its proceedings. Section 2, Rule 1, Part 1 of these rules provides that the Rules of Court apply to Sandiganbayan proceedings insofar as they are applicable. For motions in appealed cases, the Sandiganbayan's Revised Internal Rules adopt Section 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

The exact text of Section 3, Rule 49 is not available in the ASG law library, but the rule is well-established: motions in appealed cases are generally not set for hearing and are deemed submitted for resolution after the adverse party has had an opportunity to file objections. Unless the court directs otherwise, no oral argument is required.

The Supreme Court found that the petitioners were not obliged to set their motion for hearing. They were required only to serve a copy on the Special Prosecutor, who then had a period to file objections. After that period, the motion was deemed submitted for resolution.

The Sandiganbayan's Error

The Sandiganbayan failed to cite any rule requiring a hearing for the petitioners' motion. By dismissing the motion on this ground and declaring its decision final, it acted contrary to its own rules. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan's resolution was a nullity and directed it to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration on its merits.

Importantly, the ruling did not acquit the petitioners. It merely corrected the procedural error and required the Sandiganbayan to properly consider the motion.

Practical Takeaways

• Know the court's specific rules. Special courts like the Sandiganbayan have internal rules that may adopt or modify the Rules of Court. Always verify which rules apply to your case.
• Hearings are generally not required for motions in appealed cases. Under Section 3, Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, motions are resolved without hearing unless the court directs otherwise.
• Proper service remains mandatory. Even without a hearing, the motion must be served on the adverse party, who has a period to file objections.
• A court's failure to follow its own rules can be corrected. If a court disregards procedural requirements to a party's detriment, the Supreme Court may nullify the erroneous resolution and compel proper consideration of the motion.
• Finality is not automatic. A decision does not become final and executory until the period to appeal lapses without an appeal, or until pending motions are properly resolved.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.