G.R. No. 201601 , March 12, 2014
MARYLOU CABRERA, Petitioner, vs. FELIX NG, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Felix Ng filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner Marylou Cabrera and her husband (spouses Cabrera) before the RTC of Mandaue City, alleging that the spouses issued three checks that were dishonored upon presentment due to closed accounts. The spouses admitted issuing two checks but claimed payment through respondent’s son, and denied issuing the third check, alleging it was forcibly taken. The RTC rendered a Decision on August 7, 2007, ordering the spouses to pay the respondent. The spouses received the decision on August 8, 2007, and filed a motion for reconsideration on August 14, 2007, setting it for hearing on August 17, 2007. They sent a copy to the respondent via registered mail on August 14, 2007, which the respondent received on August 21, 2007. The hearing on August 17 did not proceed as a new judge had assumed office. The RTC reset the hearing to September 25, 2007, and later to October 26, 2007. The respondent filed an opposition on September 20, 2007, arguing the motion was a mere scrap of paper for violating the three-day notice rule. On October 26, 2007, the RTC directed the filing of additional pleadings. On December 19, 2007, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, ruling it violated the three-day notice requirement under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, rendering the August 7, 2007 Decision final. The CA denied the petitioner’s certiorari petition, affirming the RTC’s order. The petitioner sought reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Order dated December 19, 2007, which denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the spouses Cabrera for alleged violation of the three-day notice requirement.

RULING

The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA Decision and Resolution. The general rule under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is that the three-day notice requirement for motions is mandatory and integral to procedural due process. A motion that fails to comply is considered a worthless piece of paper that does not toll the reglementary period for appeal. However, this rule is not absolute. The purpose of the notice is to avoid surprises and grant the adverse party sufficient time to study and oppose the motion. When the adverse party has been afforded the opportunity to be heard and has actually filed pleadings in opposition, the purpose is deemed realized, and there is substantial compliance with due process. In this case, although the respondent received the motion four days after the initial hearing date set by the movants, the hearing was reset twice with due notice, and the motion was actually heard on October 26, 2007. The respondent had received the motion on August 21, 2007, had sufficient time to study it, and filed an opposition on September 20, 2007. Thus, his right to due process was not impaired. The RTC erred in denying the motion based merely on a technicality. The case was remanded to the RTC to resolve the motion for reconsideration on its merits within five days from the finality of the Decision.