Anda di halaman 1dari 5


Where the resolution of the motion is

VETTE INDUSTRIAL SALES CO., INC. vs addressed solely to the sound and judicious
CHENG discretion of the court;
G.R. No. 170232 Dec 5, 2006
4. Where the injustice to the adverse party is not
commensurate [to] the degree of his
FACTS: thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed."
Cheng filed an action for specific performance
and damages against Vette Industrial Sales Co.
for breaching their obligation contained in the A notice of hearing is conceptualized as an
Memorandum of Agreement. Under the MOA, integral component of procedural due process
the company acknowledged owing Cheng a sum intended to afford the adverse parties a chance
of money as compensation for the shares he to be heard before a motion is resolved by the
transferred, insurance proceeds and signing court. Through such notice, the adverse party is
bonus. In their answer with counterclaim, Vettel permitted time to study and answer the
Industrial claimed that the shares have already arguments in the motion. When the trial court
been paid; that the MOA is unenforceable and received Cheng’s Manifestation and Motion for
void. After failing to settle during mediation, the Reconsideration, it did not immediately resolve
case was referred back to the court. the motion. Instead, it allowed Vette Industrial to
file their comment and also leave to file a
rejoinder if Cheng files a reply.
On the day of the Pre-trial, Cheng and his
counsel Atty. Ferrer failed to appear resulting to
the dismissal of the case. Cheng filed a motion The notice requirement is not a ritual to be
for reconsideration. Vette Industrial claims that followed blindly. Instead, procedural rules are
the motion was procedurally defective because it liberally construed to promote their objective and
was not served three days before the date of the to assist in obtaining a just, speedy and
hearing and no proof of service was given to the inexpensive determination of any action and
court, in violation of Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 15. proceeding. Rules of procedure are but tools
The trial court granted the motion. Vette designed to facilitate the attainment of justice,
Industrial elevated the case to the CA. The ruling such that when rigid application of the rules tend
of the trial court was vacated and Cheng’s to frustrate rather than promote substantial
complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Both justice, SC is empowered to suspend their
parties assailed the ruling before the SC. operation.
Boiser v Judge Aguirre, Jr A.M. No.
RTJ-04-1886; May 16, 2005

Is the rule of notice required under Sections 4

and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court violated? FACTS:

The case stems from an ejectment case filed by

Petitioner Boiser against one Julleza, which was
decided in favor of Boiser by the MTC. When the
RULING: case reached the RTC on appeal by Julleza,
Julleza filed a motion to release bond which was
No. Although the Court has consistently held that granted by Respondent Judge. Boiser then filed
a motion which does not meet the requirements the instant administrative case against
of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Respondent Judge for ignorance of the law,
Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, alleging that the motion did not state that he was
there are exceptions to the strict application of furnished a copy of the motion thereby depriving
this rule: him of his right to due process.

After it was found out by Boiser that Respondent

Judge held in his favor in the decision of his
1. Where a rigid application will result in a ejectment case, Boiser withdrew his
manifest failure or miscarriage of justice; administrative complaint. The administrative
especially if a party successfully shows that the complaint was still placed under investigation
alleged defect in the questioned final and with the CA which held to dismiss the case; the
executory judgment is not apparent on its face or case was raised to the Supreme Court for instant
from the recitals contained therein; review.
2. Where the interest of substantial justice will be
ISSUE: Whether or not the administrative case is
moot, the petitioner having withdrawn the case
On 9 June 2003, respondent filed her
Memorandum. On 19 June 2003, the RTC
RULING: No, mere desistance on the part of the dismissed the appeal as follows:
complainant does not warrant the dismissal of an
administrative complaint against any member of Record shows that defendant-appellant received
the bench the Notice of Appealed Case, through counsel,
on May 19, 2003 (Registry Return Receipt dated
May 12, 2003, Record, back of p. 298). Thus,
The withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the under Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of
Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to Civil Procedure, she had fifteen (15) days or until
determine the veracity of the charges made and June 3, 2003 within which to submit a
to discipline, such as the results of its memorandum on appeal. As further appears on
investigation may warrant, an erring respondent. record, however, the required Memorandum was
Even the retirement of respondent does not oust filed by defendant-appellant only on June 9,
the Court of its jurisdiction over an administrative 2003 (Record, p. 623), or six (6) days beyond
case by the mere fact that the respondent public the expiration of the aforesaid fifteen day period.
official ceases to hold office during the pendency
of respondent’s case. Aggrieved, respondent filed a Petition for
Certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which was
granted the petition of respondent. The appellate
On deciding the main issue, the Court held that court nullified and set aside Orders of the RTC
the Motion to Release Bond was defective, not and ordered the reinstatement of respondent’s
having a proper notice of hearing. Not to mention appeal. Consequently, respondent’s appeal
the fact that the date and time of the hearing memorandum was admitted and the case
were not specified, and that neither complainant remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.
nor his counsel was furnished a copy thereof. Hence, this appeal by petitioner.
These were never controverted by respondent
judge. A motion without notice of hearing is pro Issue: Whether the lack of notice of hearing in
forma, a mere scrap of paper. It presents no the Motion for Extension of Time to file
question which the court could decide. The court Memorandum on Appeal is fatal, such that the
has no reason to consider it and the clerk has no filing of the motion is a worthless piece of paper.
right to receive it.
Held: In this case, the answer is NO. Petitioner
avers that, because of the failure of respondent
Sarmiento v. Zaratan to include a Notice of Hearing in her Motion for
Facts: Petitioner Gliceria Sarmiento filed an Extension of Time to file Memorandum on
ejectment case against respondent Emerita Appeal in the RTC, the latter’s motion is a
Zaratan, in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) worthless piece of paper with no legal effect.
of Quezon City. On 31 March 2003, the MeTC It is not disputed that respondent perfected her
rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. ( MeTC appeal on 4 April 2003 with the filing of her
ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff monthly Notice of Appeal and payment of the required
rentals and to vacate the premises.) docket fees. However, before the expiration of
time to file the Memorandum, she filed a Motion
Respondent filed her notice of appeal. for Extension of Time seeking an additional
Thereafter, the case was raffled to the RTC of period of five days within which to file her
Quezon City. Memorandum, which motion lacked the Notice of
Hearing required by Section 4, Rule 15 of the
In the Notice of Appealed Case, the RTC 1997 Rules of Court which provides:
directed respondent to submit her memorandum SEC. 4. Hearing of Motion. - Except for motions
in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(b) which the court may act upon without prejudicing
of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court and petitioner to the rights of the adverse party, every written
file a reply memorandum within 15 days from motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
receipt. Every written motion required to be heard and
the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served
Respondent’s counsel having received the in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the
notice on 19 May 2003, he had until 3 June 2003 other party at least three (3) days before the date
within which to file the requisite memorandum. of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets
But on 3 June 2003, he filed a Motion for the hearing on shorter notice.
Extension of Time of five days due to his failure
to finish the draft of the said Memorandum. He As may be gleaned above and as held time and
cited as reasons for the delay of filing his illness again, the notice requirement in a motion is
for one week, lack of staff to do the work due to mandatory. As a rule, a motion without a Notice
storm and flood compounded by the grounding of Hearing is considered pro forma and does not
of the computers because the wirings got affect the reglementary period for the appeal or
wet. But the motion remained unacted. the filing of the requisite pleading.
As a general rule, notice of motion is required exception to a rule requiring notice is sometimes
where a party has a right to resist the relief made where notice or the resulting delay might
sought by the motion and principles of natural tend to defeat the objective of the motion.
justice demand that his right be not affected
without an opportunity to be heard. The WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
three-day notice required by law is intended not DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and the
for the benefit of the movant but to avoid Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby
surprises upon the adverse party and to give the AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.
latter time to study and meet the arguments of
the motion. Principles of natural justice demand
that the right of a party should not be affected
without giving it an opportunity to be heard. CESAR V. AREZA v. EXPRESS SAVINGS
BANK, GR No. 176697, 2014-09-10
The test is the presence of the opportunity to be Facts:
heard, as well as to have time to study the
motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
the grounds upon which it is based. Considering Petitioners Cesar V. Areza and Lolita B. Areza
the circumstances of the present case, we maintained two bank deposits with respondent
believe that procedural due process was Express Savings Bank's Biñan branch
substantially complied with.
They were engaged in the business of "buy and
There are, indeed, reasons which would warrant sell" of brand new and second-hand motor
the suspension of the Rules: (a) the existence of vehicles. On 2 May 2000, they received an
special or compelling circumstances, b) the order from a certain Gerry Mambuay (Mambuay)
merits of the case, (c) a cause not entirely for the purchase of a second-hand Mitsubishi
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party Pajero and a brand-new Honda CRV.
favored by the suspension of rules, (d) a lack of
The buyer, Mambuay, paid petitioners with nine
any showing that the review sought is merely
(9) Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO)
frivolous and dilatory, and (e) the other party will
checks payable to different payees and drawn
not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. Elements or
against the Philippine Veterans Bank (drawee),
circumstances (c), (d) and (e) exist in the present
each valued at Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) for a total of One Million Eight
The suspension of the Rules is warranted in this Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,800,000.00).
case. The motion in question does not affect the
substantive rights of petitioner as it merely seeks About this occasion, petitioners claimed that
to extend the period to file Memorandum. The Michael Potenciano (Potenciano), the branch
required extension was due to respondent’s manager of respondent Express Savings Bank
counsel’s illness, lack of staff to do the work due (the Bank) was present during the transaction
to storm and flood, compounded by the and immediately offered the services of the Bank
grounding of the computers. There is no claim for the processing and eventual crediting of the...
likewise that said motion was interposed to delay said checks to petitioners' account.
the appeal. As it appears, respondent sought petitioners deposited the said checks in their
extension prior to the expiration of the time to do savings account with the Bank. The Bank, in
so and the memorandum was subsequently filed turn, deposited the checks with its depositary
within the requested extended period. Under the bank, Equitable-PCI Bank, in Biñan, Laguna.
circumstances, substantial justice requires that Equitable-PCI Bank presented the checks to the
we go into the merits of the case to resolve the drawee, the Philippine
issue of who is entitled to the possession of the
land in question. Veterans Bank, which honored the checks.
Potenciano informed petitioners that the checks
Further, it has been held that a "motion for they deposited with the Bank were honored. He
extension of time x x x is not a litigated motion allegedly warned petitioners that the clearing of
where notice to the adverse party is necessary to the checks pertained only to the availability of
afford the latter an opportunity to resist the funds and did not mean that the checks were not
application, but an ex parte motion made to the infirmed.
court in behalf of one or the other of the parties
to the action, in the absence and usually without Sometime in July 2000, the subject checks were
the knowledge of the other party or parties." As a returned by PVAO to the drawee on the ground
general rule, notice of motion is required where a that the amount on the face of the checks was
party has a right to resist the relief sought by the altered from the original amount of P4,000.00 to
motion and principles of natural justice demand P200,000.00.
that his rights be not affected without an
the Bank was informed by Equitable-PCI Bank
opportunity to be heard. It has been said that "ex
that the drawee dishonored the checks on the
parte motions are frequently permissible in
ground of material alterations.
procedural matters, and also in situations and
under circumstances of emergency; and an
The Bank insisted that they informed petitioners Petitioners filed the present petition for review on
of said development in August 2000 by certiorari raising both procedural and substantive
furnishing them copies of the documents given issues
by its depositary bank.[7] On the other hand,
petitioners maintained that the Bank never Issues:
informed them of these... developments. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals
On 9 March 2001, petitioners issued a check in committed a reversible error of law and grave
the amount of P500,000.00. Said check was abuse of discretion in upholding the legality
dishonored by the Bank for the reason "Deposit and/or propriety of the Motion for
Under Hold. Reconsideration filed in violation of Section 5,
Rule 15 of the Rules on Civil Procedure
According to petitioners, the Bank unilaterally
and unlawfully put their account with the Bank on
hold Sections 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court states:
Acting on the alleged arbitrary and groundless Section 5. Notice of hearing. The notice of
dishonoring of their checks and the unlawful and hearing shall be addressed to all parties
unilateral withdrawal from their savings account, concerned, and shall specify the time and date
petitioners filed a Complaint for Sum of Money of the hearing which must not be later than ten
with Damages against the Bank and Potenciano (10) days after the filing of the motion.
Invoking Article 1977 of the Civil Code, the trial Petitioners claim that the notice of hearing was
court stated that the depositary cannot make use addressed to the Clerk of Court and not to the
of the thing deposited without the express adverse party as the rules require. Petitioners
permission of the depositor. The trial... court add that the hearing on the motion for
also held that respondents should have reconsideration was scheduled beyond 10 days
observed the 24-hour clearing house rule that from the date of filing.
checks should be returned within 24-hours after
discovery of the forgery but in no event beyond As held in Maturan v. Araula,[11] the rule
the period fixed by law for filing a legal requiring that the notice be addressed to the
action. In this case, petitioners deposited... the adverse party has been substantially complied
checks in May 2000, and respondents notified with when a copy of the motion for
them of the problems on the check three months reconsideration was furnished to the counsel of
later or in August 2000. In sum, the trial court the adverse party, coupled with... the fact that
characterized said acts of respondents as the trial court acted on said notice of hearing and,
attended with bad faith when they debited the as prayed for, issued an order[12] setting the
amount of P1,800,000.00 from the account... of hearing of the motion on 26 March 2004.
petitioners. We would reiterate later that there is substantial
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration compliance with the foregoing Rule if a copy of
while petitioners filed a motion for execution from the said motion for reconsideration was
the Decision of the RTC on the ground that furnished to the counsel of the adverse party.
respondents' motion for reconsideration did not To recap, the drawee bank, Philippine Veterans
conform with Section 5, Rule 16 of the Rules of Bank in this case, is only liable to the extent of
Court; hence, it was a mere scrap of... paper that the check prior to alteration. Since Philippine
did not toll the running of the period to appeal. Veterans Bank paid the altered amount of the
RTC, through Pairing Judge Romeo C. De Leon check, it may pass the liability back as it did, to
granted the motion for reconsideration, set aside Equitable-PCI Bank, the... collecting bank. The
the Pozas Decision, and dismissed the collecting banks, Equitable-PCI Bank and the
complaint. The trial court awarded respondents Bank, are ultimately liable for the amount of the
their counterclaim of moral and exemplary materially altered check. It cannot further pass
damages of P100,000.00... each. the liability back to the petitioners absent any
showing in the negligence on the part of the...
The trial court first applied the principle of petitioners which substantially contributed to the
liberality when it disregarded the alleged loss from alteration.
absence of a notice of hearing in respondents'
motion for reconsideration. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Pozas
decision only insofar as it ordered respondents
On the merits, the trial court considered the to jointly and severally pay petitioners
relationship of the Bank and petitioners with P1,800,000.00, representing the amount
respect to their... savings account deposits as a withdrawn from the latter's account. We do not
contract of loan with the bank as the debtor and conform with said ruling regarding the finding...
petitioners as creditors. of bad faith on the part of respondents, as well
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the as its failure to observe the 24-hour clearing rule.
ruling of the trial court but deleted the award of WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
Microsoft vs Farajallah
 Microsoft Corporation and Adobe  CA said that hearsay info can be basis for
Systems Incorporated (petitioners) are issuance of search warrant if followed up
corporations organized and existing under personally and validated. It is clear from
the laws of the United States. Microsoft evidence that Padilla and company were
Corporation is the owner of all rights able to personally verify the informant’s
including copyright relating to all versions tip.
and editions of Microsoft software and the  So there was probable case for issuance
corresponding user’s manuals, and the of search warrant and requirement of
registered owner of the “Microsoft” “MS personal knowledge is satisfied.
DOS” trademarks in the Philippines.
Adobe Systems Incorporated is the owner
of all rights including copyright relating to
all versions and editions of Adobe
 Samir Farajallah, et al (respondents) are
the directors and officers of New Fields
(Asia Pacific), Inc., a domestic
 Petitioners claim that in September 2009,
they were informed that New Fields was
unlawfully reproducing and using
unlicensed versions of their software.
 Orion Support Inc was asked by
petitioners to assist in the verification of
this information. Hired Serrano and
Moradoz to detect unauthorized copies of
Microsoft and Adobe.
 Case was assigned to police inspector
Padilla (trained also to distinguish original
from counterfeit software)
 3 of them went to NF. Using legitimate
business pretext, they were able to use 2
of NF’s computers and found that there
are at least 2 computers using the same
product identification and/serial numbers
of MS and Adobe. This indicates that the
software is being illegally produced or
 NF is using only one installer - first 3 sets
of numbers of product ID is the same
 All 90 computers of NF did not have cert
of authenticity by MS
 Search warrant apps filed, several items
seized (17 CD installers, 83 Computers)
 RTC ruled to quash all warrants and
directing that “all items to be seized
should be returned” bec they should have
identified and specified the computers
they were taking. CA affirmed
 W/N lower courts committed GAD in
granting Motion to quash despite having
probable cause and personal knowledge
of the warrant applicant - YES
 we find reason to overturn the rulings of
the RTC and CA, since there was grave
abuse of discretion in the appreciation of
facts. The CA sustained the quashal of
the warrant because the witnesses had
“no personal knowledge of the facts upon
which the issuance of the warrants may
be justified,” and the applicants and the
witnesses merely relied on the screen
shots acquired from the confidential