G.R. No. 165952, July 28, 2008
ANECO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - LANDEX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
Fernandez Hermanos Development, Inc. (FHDI) is the original owner of a tract of land in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City. FHDI subdivided the land into thirty-nine (39) lots. It later sold twenty-two (22) lots to petitioner Aneco and the remaining seventeen (17) lots to respondent Landex.
The dispute arose when Landex started the construction of a concrete wall on one of its lots. To restrain construction of the wall, Aneco filed a complaint for injunction with the RTC
The RTC rendered a Decision granting the complaint for injunction. Landex moved for reconsideration. Records reveal that Landex failed to include a notice of hearing in its motion for reconsideration as required under Section 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Realizing the defect, Landex later filed a motion setting a hearing for its motion for reconsideration. Aneco countered with a motion for execution claiming that the RTC decision is already final and executory.
The RTC issued an order granting the motion for reconsideration of Landex and dismissing the complaint of Aneco.
Issue:
Whether or not the requirement of notice of hearing should be strictly or liberally applied under the circumstances.
Held:
A motion without the required notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper. It does not toll the running of the period to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. It is also true that procedural rules are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application should be relaxed when they hinder rather than promote substantial justice. Public policy dictates that court cases should, as much as possible, be resolved on the merits not on mere technicalities. Substantive justice trumps procedural rules. In Barnes v. Padilla, the SC held:
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final.
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Time and again, SC has consistently held that rules must not be applied rigidly so as not to override substantial justice.
Here, the SC find that the RTC and the CA soundly exercised their discretion in opting for a liberal rather than a strict application of the rules on notice of hearing. It must be stressed that there is no vested right to technicalities. It is within the courts sound discretion to relax procedural rules in order to fully adjudicate the merits of a case. This Court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion absent grave abuse or palpable error. Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure even mandates a liberal construction of the rules to promote their objectives of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
To be sure, the requirement of a notice of hearing in every contested motion is part of due process of law. The notice alerts the opposing party of a pending motion in court and gives him an opportunity to oppose it. What the rule forbids is not the mere absence of a notice of hearing in a contested motion but the unfair surprise caused by the lack of notice. It is the dire consequences which flow from the procedural error which is proscribed. If the opposing party is given a sufficient opportunity to oppose a defective motion, the procedural lapse is deemed cured and the intent of the rule is substantially complied.
SC finds that the procedural lapse committed by Landex was sufficiently cured when it filed another motion setting a hearing for its defective motion for reconsideration. Records reveal that the RTC set a hearing for the motion for reconsideration but Anecos counsel failed to appear. The RTC then gave Aneco additional time to file comment on the motion for reconsideration.
Aneco was afforded procedural due process when it was given an opportunity to oppose the motion for reconsideration. It cannot argue unfair surprise because it was afforded ample time to file a comment, as it did comment, on the motion for reconsideration. There being no substantial injury or unfair prejudice, the RTC and the CA correctly ignored the procedural defect.
ANECO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - LANDEX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
Fernandez Hermanos Development, Inc. (FHDI) is the original owner of a tract of land in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City. FHDI subdivided the land into thirty-nine (39) lots. It later sold twenty-two (22) lots to petitioner Aneco and the remaining seventeen (17) lots to respondent Landex.
The dispute arose when Landex started the construction of a concrete wall on one of its lots. To restrain construction of the wall, Aneco filed a complaint for injunction with the RTC
The RTC rendered a Decision granting the complaint for injunction. Landex moved for reconsideration. Records reveal that Landex failed to include a notice of hearing in its motion for reconsideration as required under Section 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Realizing the defect, Landex later filed a motion setting a hearing for its motion for reconsideration. Aneco countered with a motion for execution claiming that the RTC decision is already final and executory.
The RTC issued an order granting the motion for reconsideration of Landex and dismissing the complaint of Aneco.
Issue:
Whether or not the requirement of notice of hearing should be strictly or liberally applied under the circumstances.
Held:
A motion without the required notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper. It does not toll the running of the period to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. It is also true that procedural rules are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application should be relaxed when they hinder rather than promote substantial justice. Public policy dictates that court cases should, as much as possible, be resolved on the merits not on mere technicalities. Substantive justice trumps procedural rules. In Barnes v. Padilla, the SC held:
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final.
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Time and again, SC has consistently held that rules must not be applied rigidly so as not to override substantial justice.
Here, the SC find that the RTC and the CA soundly exercised their discretion in opting for a liberal rather than a strict application of the rules on notice of hearing. It must be stressed that there is no vested right to technicalities. It is within the courts sound discretion to relax procedural rules in order to fully adjudicate the merits of a case. This Court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion absent grave abuse or palpable error. Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure even mandates a liberal construction of the rules to promote their objectives of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
To be sure, the requirement of a notice of hearing in every contested motion is part of due process of law. The notice alerts the opposing party of a pending motion in court and gives him an opportunity to oppose it. What the rule forbids is not the mere absence of a notice of hearing in a contested motion but the unfair surprise caused by the lack of notice. It is the dire consequences which flow from the procedural error which is proscribed. If the opposing party is given a sufficient opportunity to oppose a defective motion, the procedural lapse is deemed cured and the intent of the rule is substantially complied.
SC finds that the procedural lapse committed by Landex was sufficiently cured when it filed another motion setting a hearing for its defective motion for reconsideration. Records reveal that the RTC set a hearing for the motion for reconsideration but Anecos counsel failed to appear. The RTC then gave Aneco additional time to file comment on the motion for reconsideration.
Aneco was afforded procedural due process when it was given an opportunity to oppose the motion for reconsideration. It cannot argue unfair surprise because it was afforded ample time to file a comment, as it did comment, on the motion for reconsideration. There being no substantial injury or unfair prejudice, the RTC and the CA correctly ignored the procedural defect.
No comments:
Post a Comment