De los Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan

A motion for reconsideration in an appealed case before the Sandiganbayan need not be set for hearing; under Section 1, Rule VII of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, Section 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies, so the movant need only serve a copy on the adverse party, who may file objections within five days, after which the motion is deemed submitted for resolution.

Petitioners Gilberto M. De los Reyes and Cesar Q. Concon were Assistant Head II and Tax Mapper IV, respectively, in the Office of the City Assessor of Cebu City, while Antonio Callanta was the Officer-in-Charge/City Assessor. The statute involved was the Property Tax Code, P.D. No. 464, and its Section 30 concerned appeals to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. The Sandiganbayan's Revised Internal Rules, effective October 1, 2002, govern motions in appealed cases before it.

In 1988, the Office of the City Assessor of Cebu City conducted a general revision of the assessment of real properties, which updated tax declarations and increased or decreased the values of certain properties. Antonio Callanta was then the Officer-in-Charge of the City Assessor; Gilberto de los Reyes was Assistant Head II; and Cesar Q. Concon was Tax Mapper IV.

Acting on requests of some real property owners, Callanta, De los Reyes, and Concon, in their official capacities and without the intervention or participation of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, granted the requests to reassess and readjust the assessed values of their real properties. The reassessment resulted in the decrease of the assessed values of some properties, and new tax declarations were issued to the owners reflecting the reduced assessment values. The prosecution presented documentary evidence, including various tax declarations and notices of assessment, a description of form bearing the signatures of De los Reyes and Concon, and a portion of the schedule of valuation for 1981 to 1984 used as basis for the 1988 assessment.

With respect to Callanta, the prosecution presented notices of assessment sent to registered owners informing them of updated assessed values and advising them that, if dissatisfied, they had within 60 days from receipt to appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals under Section 30 of P.D. No. 464. All the notices were signed by Callanta as City Assessor. He acted on requests for reconsideration filed by affected taxpayers, causing the reduction of the assessed values of their real properties as shown in the tax declarations issued thereafter.

As to Concon, the prosecution presented Tax Declaration No. 01078 covering a building owned by the spouses Romulo and Josephine Bernardo with an updated assessment value of ₱312,730.00. The spouses Bernardo requested reassessment, and Concon, as Tax Mapper IV, acted on the request, resulting in a new tax declaration covering the same property with a decreased value of ₱64,310.00; Concon approved the new tax declaration. Other tax declarations with reduced assessment values approved by Concon were also presented, as were several new tax declarations with reduced assessment values approved by De los Reyes. The prosecution claimed that De los Reyes and Concon were not authorized by law to grant and approve requests for reassessment of real properties with assessed values exceeding ₱100,000.00.

The defense presented documentary and testimonial evidence. Callanta claimed that as City Assessor he was authorized to entertain petitions for reconsideration from owners of real properties whose assessed values were upgraded during the revision from 1988 onwards, and that it was a long-standing practice of City Assessors to entertain such petitions under Section 22 of P.D. No. 464. The defense presented tax declarations showing that former City Assessor Demosthenes Querubin readjusted assessed values upon requests for reconsideration, and an excerpt of the Real Property Tax Records Management Manual issued by the Department of Finance authorizing the City Assessor to reassess properties of taxpayers who request reassessment. De los Reyes and Concon claimed that they acted on reassessments of real properties with assessed values of more than ₱100,000.00 by virtue of their designations to act on all routinary matters, including authority to act on petitions for reconsideration on assessed values, in the absence of City Assessor Callanta.

After the Sandiganbayan denied their appeal in A/R No. 003 on July 7, 2004, petitioners received a copy of the Decision on July 20, 2004 and filed a motion for reconsideration on August 5, 2004. The motion was not set for hearing. On August 12, 2004, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution declaring that the motion was a mere scrap of paper, that the period to appeal had not been suspended, and that its decision had become final and executory. Petitioners then filed the present petition assailing the Decision and Resolution.

• Hearing of Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioners averred that they were not mandated to set for hearing their motion for reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan's ruling in A/R No. 003; they insisted they were merely required to serve a copy of their motion on the Special Prosecutor, applying by analogy Sections 1, 3 and 4 of Rule 121 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that they complied by seasonably serving copies on the Special Prosecutor and the Office of the Solicitor General.
• Relaxation of Rules: Petitioners argued that even if they were required to set their motion for hearing, the interest of justice would be better served if the Rules were relaxed in their favor, citing People vs. Hon. Leviste, Dra. Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, and Basco vs. Court of Appeals.
• Contrary Administrative Finding: Petitioners alleged that the Sandiganbayan erred because the SC En Banc in G.R. Nos. 115253-74 found that petitioners did not act willfully or through gross negligence or with evident bad faith on the questioned reassessments, so the Sandiganbayan should not have taken a contrary judgment in the criminal case.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners alleged that the Sandiganbayan erred when it preemptorily failed to consider other facets and pertinent ratiocinations of the RTC's assailed decision, amounting to grave abuse of discretion.

• Mandatory Hearing: The Office of the Special Prosecutor cited Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to support its contention that the setting of a motion for reconsideration for hearing is mandatory and that failure to do so is fatal to the petition.

• Finality of Sandiganbayan Decision: Whether the Sandiganbayan Decision in A/R No. 003 had attained finality before petitioners filed the instant petition, considering that petitioners' motion for reconsideration was not set for hearing.

• Finality of Sandiganbayan Decision: No. The Sandiganbayan's declaration that the motion for reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper and that its decision had become final and executory was contrary to its own rules; the August 12, 2004 Resolution was a nullity.

• Finality of Sandiganbayan Decision: The Sandiganbayan failed to cite any rule requiring the motion for reconsideration to be set for hearing. There is no rule in the 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan requiring a movant to set such motion for hearing. Under the second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 1, Part 1 of those Rules, the Rules of Court relating to or affecting the RTC and CA, insofar as applicable, govern proceedings in the Sandiganbayan; Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure relative to hearings before the MTC and RTC governs only in the absence of a similar provision in the Sandiganbayan's Revised Internal Rules. What was pending before the Sandiganbayan was petitioners' appeal via petition for review from the RTC, which affirmed the MTC. Under the last paragraph of Section 1, Rule VII of the Revised Internal Rules, effective October 1, 2002, Section 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to motions in appealed cases. That provision states that motions shall not be set for hearing and, unless the court otherwise directs, no hearing or oral argument shall be allowed; the adverse party may file objections within five days from service, after which the motion is deemed submitted for resolution. Petitioners were therefore not obliged to set their motion for reconsideration for hearing; they were obliged merely to serve a copy on the Special Prosecutor, who had five days from service to file objections. The Sandiganbayan acted contrary to its own rules in denying the motion as a mere scrap of paper and declaring its decision final and executory, so its August 12, 2004 Resolution was a nullity.

• Motion for reconsideration in appealed cases before the Sandiganbayan — Under Section 1, Rule VII of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, Section 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to motions in appealed cases; motions shall not be set for hearing, and unless the court directs, no hearing or oral argument is allowed; the adverse party may file objections within five days from service, after which the motion is deemed submitted. The SC applied this to hold that petitioners' motion for reconsideration was not a mere scrap of paper for not being set for hearing, and the Sandiganbayan's resolution declaring finality was a nullity.
• Suppletory application of the Rules of Court to the Sandiganbayan — Under Section 2, Rule 1, Part 1 of the 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, the Rules of Court relating to or affecting the RTC and CA, insofar as applicable, govern all actions and proceedings in the Sandiganbayan; Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on hearings before the MTC and RTC governs only in the absence of a similar provision in the Sandiganbayan's Revised Internal Rules. Because the Sandiganbayan had a similar provision for motions in appealed cases, Section 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applied, not Rule 15.
• Finality of judgment — A court's declaration that its decision has become final and executory is a nullity where it rests on an erroneous ruling that a motion for reconsideration is a mere scrap of paper for failure to set it for hearing, when the governing rules do not require such hearing. The SC nullified the Sandiganbayan's August 12, 2004 Resolution and directed it to resolve the motion in due course.

• "In declaring that petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before it was a mere scrap of paper, the Sandiganbayan failed to cite any rule as basis therefor." — The SC begins its ruling by noting that the Sandiganbayan had no rule-based ground for treating the motion as a mere scrap of paper.
• "As gleaned from the foregoing provisions, petitioners were not obliged to set for hearing their motion for reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan decision." — The SC applies Section 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and holds that no hearing was required for the motion for reconsideration.
• "Thus, in perfunctorily denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of its decision and declared that such decision was final and executory, the Sandiganbayan acted contrary to its own rules. Patently then, the assailed resolution of the Sandiganbayan is a nullity." — The SC concludes that the Sandiganbayan's resolution declaring finality was contrary to its own rules and therefore void.

• Section 2, Rule 1, Part 1, 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan — Provides that the Rules of Court, resolutions, circulars, and other issuances promulgated by the SC relating to or affecting the RTC and CA, insofar as applicable, shall govern all actions and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan. The SC used this to determine that Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies only in the absence of a similar provision in the Sandiganbayan's Revised Internal Rules.
• Section 1, Rule VII, 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan — Provides that in appealed cases, Section 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, on motions shall apply. The SC applied this because what was pending before the Sandiganbayan was petitioners' appeal via petition for review from the RTC.
• Section 3, Rule 49, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that motions shall not be set for hearing and, unless the court otherwise directs, no hearing or oral argument shall be allowed; the adverse party may file objections within five days from service, after which the motion is deemed submitted for resolution. The SC applied this to hold that petitioners were not obliged to set their motion for reconsideration for hearing and that the Sandiganbayan's scrap-of-paper resolution was a nullity.