Cabrera v. Ng
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Felix Ng filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner Marylou Cabrera and her husband, Marionilo Cabrera (spouses Cabrera), alleging they issued three Metrobank checks. Two checks, for ₱31,000.00 and ₱38,074.76, were admitted by the spouses Cabrera but claimed to have been paid through respondent's son. They denied issuing the third check for ₱2,500,000.00, claiming it was forcibly taken. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the spouses Cabrera to pay the respondent ₱2,569,074.00, plus legal interest, moral damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The spouses Cabrera filed a motion for reconsideration, setting it for hearing on August 17, 2007. A copy was sent via registered mail on August 14, 2007, but was received by the respondent's counsel on August 21, 2007, four days after the scheduled hearing. The RTC, citing the violation of the three-day notice rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, denied the motion for reconsideration, declaring the August 7, 2007 Decision final. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's denial, holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in applying the rule. The Petition: Petitioner Marylou Cabrera filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration. She contended that the motion was actually heard on October 26, 2007, after the respondent had filed his opposition, rendering the issue of the three-day notice moot. She also argued that the RTC should have resolved the motion on its merits rather than on a technicality.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's Order denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the spouses Cabrera, considering the application of the three-day notice rule. Whether the denial of the motion for reconsideration based solely on the violation of the three-day notice rule, despite substantial compliance with due process, constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the spouses Cabrera on the merits within five (5) days from the finality of this Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the denial of the motion for reconsideration and the application of the three-day notice rule: The Supreme Court held that while the three-day notice requirement under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is generally mandatory, it is not absolute. The purpose is to prevent surprise and allow the adverse party time to study the motion. This purpose is realized if the adverse party is heard through pleadings filed in opposition. In this case, the spouses Cabrera's motion was reset twice with notice. The respondent received the motion on August 21, 2007, and the hearing was on October 26, 2007. The respondent filed an opposition on September 20, 2007, indicating sufficient time to prepare. Despite the initial violation of the three-day notice rule, the respondent's right to due process was not impinged. The RTC erred in denying the motion based merely on the technicality of the three-day notice requirement. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that because the respondent had sufficient time to respond to the motion for reconsideration and was, in fact, heard, the denial of the motion based solely on the technical violation of the three-day notice rule, without considering the substantial compliance with due process, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The RTC should have considered the respondent's actual opportunity to be heard rather than rigidly applying the procedural rule.
Main Doctrine
The three-day notice requirement in motions is not absolute and may be deemed substantially complied with if the adverse party has been afforded an opportunity to be heard and has filed pleadings in opposition, thereby realizing the purpose behind the rule and satisfying the requirements of procedural due process.