GR L 10304; (May, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10304 May 31, 1957
SUN UN GIOK, petitioner, vs. HERMOGENES MATUSA, HON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., Presiding Judge of the Second Branch of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sun Un Giok, owner of the Idelco Theater in La Carlota, Negros Occidental, was sued by respondent Hermogenes Matusa for underpayment of wages and overtime compensation. After being served summons, Sun Un Giok’s counsel filed a “Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Amended Complaint” on September 9, 1955. The motion contained a notice addressed to the Clerk of Court requesting submission of the motion for the court’s consideration “as soon as thereafter as counsel can be heard,” but it did not specify a date for the hearing. The motion was set for hearing on September 24, 1955. The court deferred action on the motion because counsel for Sun Un Giok could not present proof of service on the adverse party at that hearing. Before such proof could be presented, Matusa filed a motion to declare Sun Un Giok in default, which was granted. The court then rendered a judgment against Sun Un Giok. Sun Un Giok filed a motion to lift the order of default and vacate the judgment, which was denied. He then filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the motion to dismiss filed by Sun Un Giok’s counsel, which contained a defective notice of hearing, was a valid motion that suspended the time to file an answer, thereby making the subsequent order of default and judgment improper.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that while the notice in the motion to dismiss was defective for failing to specify the exact hearing date, the court’s act of taking cognizance of the motion on the date set for hearing (September 24, 1955) and issuing an order concerning it cured any defect. The Court emphasized that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that parties should not be deprived of their day in court. Since the motion was heard and the court acted upon it, there was no absolute absence of notice or opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of default and the judgment rendered in the absence of the defendant were set aside. The respondent court was ordered to hear and pass upon the motion to dismiss and proceed with the case. The preliminary injunction was made permanent.