GR 171872; (June, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171872; June 28, 2010
FAUSTO R. PREYSLER, JR., Petitioner, vs. MANILA SOUTHCOAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Fausto R. Preysler, Jr. filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondent Manila Southcoast Development Corporation before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Batangas, involving a parcel of land covered by his Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) but also within the respondent’s larger titled property. The MTC ruled in favor of Preysler. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC and dismissed the complaint. Petitioner received the RTC Decision on February 9, 2004, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration set for hearing on February 26, 2004. A copy of this motion was sent to respondent’s counsel by registered mail on February 23, 2004, but it was received only on March 3, 2004—six days after the initial hearing date. The hearing was subsequently reset multiple times, with respondent being notified and eventually filing an opposition. The RTC, however, denied the Motion for Reconsideration, declaring its decision final and executory due to petitioner’s alleged failure to comply with the mandatory three-day notice rule under the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration based on a strict application of the three-day notice rule, despite respondent having been duly notified of the rescheduled hearings and given full opportunity to oppose the motion.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that while the three-day notice rule under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 is generally mandatory, its application is not absolute. A liberal construction of procedural rules is warranted where, as here, the lapse in literal compliance has not prejudiced the adverse party and has not deprived the court of its authority. The purpose of the notice requirement—to afford the opposing party an opportunity to be heard—was sufficiently achieved. Respondent received the motion, was notified of all rescheduled hearings, and actively participated by filing an opposition. Thus, the technical defect was cured. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are tools to facilitate justice, not to hinder it, especially when no substantial rights are impaired. The case was remanded to the RTC to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration on its merits.