CABRERA vs. NG G.R. No.

201601 (REMREV1 – CIVPRO)

FACTS: On February 14, 2004, Felix Ng filed a complaint for a sum of money with the RTC of Mandaue
City against petitioner Marylou Cabrera and her husband Marionilo alleging that the petitioner issued
three checks amounting to PHP 31,000, PHP 38,074.76 and PHP 2,500,000 and when presented for
payment, all were dishonored as the accounts from which they had been drawn were already closed.
The spouses admitted that they issued the first two checks but they claimed that they paid the
respondent the amount through respondent’s son, Richard Ng. They deny having issued the third check,
alleging that the same was forcibly taken from them by Richard Ng. The RTC rendered a decision
ordering the spouses to pay the full amount of the aforesaid checks, plus moral damages, attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses. The spouses Cabrera received a copy of the RTC decision on August 8, 2007, and
the decision was dated August 7, 2007. On August 14, the spouses filed a motion for reconsideration
with the RTC, with the hearing set to three days later. The spouses also sent a copy of their motion to
the respondent through registered mail, which was actually received by the respondent on August 21,
2007. The said motion was not heard on that date and the same was reset for September 25. On
September 20, 2007, the respondent filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration, as it violated
the three-day notice requirement. The respondent pointed out that the spouses sent him a copy of their
motion via registered mail on August 14, and that he actually received a copy of such on August 21, 4
days after the originally set hearing on August 17. The hearing scheduled on September 25 again did not
push through so it was reset to October 26. On that date, the motion for reconsideration was denied for
having violated Rule 15, Sec. 4. which states that every motion required to be heard should be served by
the movant in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three days before the
date of hearing. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, and the CA denied the same,
finding no grave abuse of discretion as the RTC merely applied the three-day rule.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision in denying the motion for
reconsideration, citing Rule 15, Sec. 4 as basis.

HELD: YES. Rule 15, Sec. 4-5 states in wise: 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.
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. The general rule is that the three-day notice requirement is mandatory as it is an integral
component of procedural due process. The purpose of such rule was for the benefit of the adverse
party, to avoid surprises upon the latter and grant it sufficient time to study the motion and enable to
the party to meet the arguments interposed therein. However, the case calls for a liberal interpretation
of such rules, as the same is not a hard and fast rule. When the adverse party had been afforded the
opportunity to be heard, and has indeed been heard through the pleadings filed in opposition to the
motion, the purpose behind the three-day notice rule has been fulfilled. The three-day rule is not
absolute. A liberal construction of the procedural rules is proper where the lapse in the literal
observance of a rule of procedure has not prejudiced the adverse party and has not deprived the court
of its authority. Rule 1, Sec. 6 states that the Rules should be liberally construed in order to promote
their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
Rules of procedure are tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, and strict and rigid
application which would lead to technicalities that tend to frustrate substantial justice must be avoided.
In the present case, the hearing for the motion for reconsideration was reset twice—and it was only on
the second resetting or October 26, 2007 that the motion was actually heard. At the time, more than
two months have passed since the respondent received the copy of the motion (August 21). The
respondent was given sufficient time due to the resettings to study the motion and to enable him to
meet the arguments interposed therein. The respondent was indeed able to file his opposition on
September 20. Despite having received the copy of the motion four days after the date set for the
hearing of the motion, Ng’s right to due process was not impaired as the successive resettings afforded
him due process and the right to be heard. The petition is granted and the case is remanded to the RTC
of Mandaue City to hear and resolve the motion for reconsideration based on its merits.