THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223778. February 27, 2019.]
LA FUNERARIA ORO, INC., petitioner, vs.PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK [PRESENTLY OWNED BY SECURITY BANK SAVINGS CORPORATION] AND BERNARDITO JIAO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 27, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223778 (La Funeraria Oro, Inc. vs. Premiere Development Bank [presently owned by Security Bank Savings Corporation] and Bernardito Jiao). — The Court NOTES the Notice of Change of Address dated October 29, 2018, filed by Atty. Don P. Porciuncula, counsel for petitioner, to No. 7 Monaco Street, Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque City.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 taken under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the Decision 2 dated October 5, 2015 and Resolution 3 dated March 31, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 112621.
Factual Antecedents
According to La Funeraria Oro, Inc. (petitioner), in December 1993, it obtained a loan from Premiere Development Bank in the amount of P4,000,000.00 secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land. Petitioner claims to have paid P10,621,324.36, in complete fulfillment of its obligation. 4
However, Premiere Development Bank and Bernardito Jiao (respondents) allege that the petitioner had two sets of loan, and the series of credit line accommodations was unpaid. 5 Concomitantly, petitioner received a Notice of Sheriff's Sale involving the sale of the property subject of the real estate mortgage to satisfy the amount of P5,891,934.00. 6
This prompted the petitioner to file a Complaint for Accounting, Release of Mortgage and Damages with Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). 7
However, in the March 15, 2006 hearing of the main case, the counsel of the respondents left the court without waiting for his case to be called. 8 As a result, upon motion of the petitioner, the testimony of the witness for the respondents was stricken off the record, and their right to present evidence was waived. 9 Judge Francisco Querubin (Judge Querubin) of the RTC ruled that the case be submitted for decision after 30 days within which both parties may submit their memorandum. 10 TIADCc
On March 27, 2006, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration and for Inhibition of the Presiding Judge (twin Motions). 11 Without resolving the twin Motions, Judge Querubin rendered a Decision on June 1, 2006, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [petitioner] Funeraria x x x Oro, Inc. and against [respondents]:
a) Declaring the Injunction issued on February 3, 2003 permanent;
b) Ordering [respondent] to release the mortgaged property under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 202389 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal;
c) Ordering the [respondent] to refund to the [petitioner] the overpayment of Php1,876,879.63; and
d) Ordering the [respondent] Premier[e] Development Bank to pay the [petitioner]:
1) P300,000.00 as exemplary damages;
2) P105,000.00 as x x x attorney's fees; and
3) The cost of suit. 12
Aggrieved, the respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam and Motion to Recall Decision Dated June 1, 2006. 13 However, the petitioner was not duly notified of both motions because the notice of hearing for each were sent to petitioner's old address.
Meanwhile, on August 22, 2006, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Decision Final and Executory with Opposition to Defendants' Motion. It averred that since it was not furnished with the motions filed by the respondents, the twin Motions are mere scraps of paper which did not toll the reglementary period to appeal. 14
Ruling of the RTC
On June 30, 2009, the RTC issued an Order 15 through Judge Mary Josephine P. Lazaro, who replaced Judge Querubin, granting the respondent bank's motions. The dispositive portion of the Order reads: 16
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:
1. GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration filed by counsel for the defendant bank, while the Motion for Inhibition of the Presiding Judge is deemed MOOTED;
2. GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam and Motion to Recall Decision Dated June 1, 2006 likewise filed by counsel for the defendant bank; and
3. DENY the Motion to Declare Decision Final and Executory filed by counsel for the plaintiff.
Accordingly, let this case be set for presentation of further evidence for the defendant bank on September 9, 2009 at 8:30 o'clock (sic) in the morning.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in an Order 17 dated November 16, 2009. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In a Decision 18 dated October 5, 2015, the CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal, to wit:
FOR THE STATED REASONS, the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 19
The CA found that there was substantial compliance with procedural due process when the petitioner filed the Motion to Declare Decision Final and Executory with Opposition to Defendants' Motion. Petitioner's right to be heard was satisfied as he was able to extensively discuss the arguments advanced by the respondents' motions in its Opposition. SDAaTC
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Thus, the instant petition.
Issue
Whether or not the CA committed a reversible error.
Ruling of this Court
The petition is bereft of merit.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court expressly provide that a written motion is rendered defective if the mandatory notice of hearing is not served upon the other party at least 3 days before the hearing, to wit:
Section 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. (4a)
Section 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. (5a)
Section 6. Proof of service necessary. — No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof. (6a)
Indeed, as a general rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading. 20
Admittedly, in this case, respondents' twin Motions were wrongly delivered to the old address of the petitioner. As a result, petitioner contends that the CA committed a reversible error of judgment in affirming respondents' motion for reconsideration, in violation of the Rules of Court.
This Court disagrees.
It is important to remember that the intention of the three-day notice requirement is to avoid surprises and to provide the adverse party a chance to study the motion and to argue meaningfully against it before the court's resolution. 21 More importantly, this rule is not fixed and absolute. In fact, the petitioner itself recognized in its petition that if "the requirements of procedural due process were substantially complied with, and that such compliance justifies a liberal interpretation of the above-mentioned rules" 22 then the court may appreciate the motions in question. The essence of this requirement is to give the adverse party an opportunity to be heard, as well as time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon which it is based. 23
In view of the foregoing legal principles and the circumstances of the present case, this Court agrees with the CA that the requirements of procedural due process were substantially complied with, and that the compliance justified a departure from a strict application of the rule on notice of hearing. A perusal of petitioner's Motion to Declare Decision Final and Executory with Opposition to Defendants' Motion will show an extensive discussion of the arguments advanced by the respondents in the twin Motions. Thus, petitioner actually had an ample opportunity to be heard.
This is not the first time that this Court affirmed a motion despite the lack of a notice of hearing. In City of Dagupan v. Maramba, 24 a total of One Million Pesos was awarded to Maramba as damage in spite of the evidence on record. The motion for reconsideration of such judgment, however, was filed without the required notice of hearing. In response, Maramba filed an Opposition to petitioner city's motion for reconsideration on the ground that the motion was not set for hearing pursuant to the Rules of Court. Her Opposition also prayed that the motion be stricken off the records. Instead of applying the strict rules of procedure, this Court ruled that Maramba already had an opportunity to be heard when she filed the Opposition to the City's motion for reconsideration. This Court granted the motion for reconsideration reversing and setting aside the decision of the CA, relaxing the procedural rules to give way to substantial justice. acEHCD
Similarly, in Jehan Shipping Corporation v. National Food Authority (NFA), 25 this Court affirmed the NFA's motion despite the absence of a notice of hearing. In the said case, although there was no notice of hearing, Jehan Shipping Corp. was able to refute the substantial issues in the NFA's motion through the opposition it filed. Thus, there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process.
In other words, this Court has held time and time again that when the adverse party actually had the opportunity to be heard, and has indeed been heard through pleadings filed in opposition to the motion, the purpose behind the rule is deemed duly served. 26
In light of the foregoing law and jurisprudence, clearly, the CA committed no reversible error.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 5, 2015 and Resolution dated March 31, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112621 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (CARANDANG, J., additional Member per S.O. No. 2624, dated November 29, 2018).
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of CourtBy:MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 7-34.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino concurring; id. at 156-166.
3.Id. at 167-169.
4.Id. at 157.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 158.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 159.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 160.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 130-135.
16.Id. at 135.
17.Id. at 154.
18.Id. at 156-166.
19.Id. at 166.
20.City of Dagupan v. Ester Maramba, 738 Phil. 71, 85 (2014).
21.Valderma v. People, G.R. No. 220054, March 27, 2017, 821 SCRA 570, 580.
22.Rollo, p. 23.
23.Anama v. Court of Appeals, et al., 680 Phil. 305, 315 (2012).
24. 738 Phil. 71, 93 (2014).
25. 514 Phil. 166 (2005).
26.Id. at 175; Preysler, Jr. v. Manila Southcoast Dev. Corporation, 635 Phil. 598, 603 (2010); Cabrera v. Ng, 729 Phil. 544, 550 (2014); and City of Dagupan v. Maramba, 738 Phil. 71, 85-86 (2014).