G.R. No. 60222 April 22, 1992
TRADERS ROYAL BANK, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL (PASAY CITY), BRANCH XXIX, THE HONORABLE MANUEL VALENZUELA, public respondents, G.M. WOOD EXPORT INDUSTRIES, INC. and SONIA GONZALES, private respondents.
Petitioner filed with the respondent trial court a complaint for a sum of money, with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment against the private respondents. Its principal causes of action involve a promissory note and domestic letters of credit in the amounts. In connection with said letters of credit, private respondent G.M. Wood Export Industries, Inc. through its President and General Manager, private respondent Gonzales, signed and delivered to the petitioner the corresponding documents of trust.
The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment. However, petitioner and private respondents filed a Joint Motion containing stipulations regarding a temporary arrangement between them under which G.M. Wood was allowed to continue with its business operations without, however, prejudicing or jeopardizing petitioner's interest in the attached or garnished properties of G.M. Wood.
The trial court approved the joint motion but lifted partially the attachment levied on private respondent's properties.
Petitioner filed an omnibus motion praying, among others, for: (a) the reconsideration of the above order insofar as it mandated the partial lifting of the writ of attachment and (b) the total reinstatement of the attachment on the properties. The hearing for this motion was postponed three (3) times at the instance of private respondents. On the third time, the hearing was again postponed but private respondents did not appear; petitioner then verbally moved for the submission of the motion for resolution. The formal motion to this effect was likewise filed. The trial court did not act thereon; instead it issued an Order granting private respondents' urgent motion for the release to private respondent Gonzales of the marginal deposit. Petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the motion, which does not even contain the required notice of hearing. Petitioner thus filed a motion for reconsideration which the trial court denied in its order.
Issue: WON there was notice of hearing in the motion
Held:
The trial court then acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the petitioner to release the marginal deposit. What is more reprehensible in the conduct of the trial court is its deliberate failure to act with dispatch on petitioner's motion to reconsider both the Order insofar as it partially lifted the writ of attachment and the approval, ex parte, of the motion to release the marginal deposit. There was, of course, merit in the first motion as the trial court acted rather capriciously when it partially lifted the writ. None of the parties asked for such lifting. On the contrary, in their joint motion, they explicitly agreed a. That the writ of attachment is not hereby lifted by virtue of this temporary arrangement and the attachment/garnishment/levy on the properties of defendant shall subsists. As to the motion for release, SC noted from the Order dated 29 January 1981 that it is denominated as urgent and was filed only on 28 January 1981. Respondents do not deny the fact that no copy thereof was furnished the petitioner; they also do not dispute the fact that no notice of its hearing was indicated in the motion. The movants then deliberately violated the requirement of notice prescribed in Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. This requirement is mandatory. A motion that does not contain a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper; it presents no question which merits the attention and consideration of the court. It is not even a motion for it does not comply with the rules and the clerk of court has no right to receive it. Being a mere scrap of paper, the trial court had no other alternative but to disregard it. Even if the motion contained a notice, still the trial court could not have validly acted on it for, as of the date it acted thereon, no proof of service of the notice on petitioner was shown. Section 6 of the aforecited Rule provides that:
No motion shall be acted upon by the court, without proof of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or parties are not affected.
In this case, the right of the petitioner was definitely affected. That petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider and that it underwent a full-blown hearing did not, contrary to the postulation of the Court of Appeals, cure the fatal error.
TRADERS ROYAL BANK, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL (PASAY CITY), BRANCH XXIX, THE HONORABLE MANUEL VALENZUELA, public respondents, G.M. WOOD EXPORT INDUSTRIES, INC. and SONIA GONZALES, private respondents.
Petitioner filed with the respondent trial court a complaint for a sum of money, with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment against the private respondents. Its principal causes of action involve a promissory note and domestic letters of credit in the amounts. In connection with said letters of credit, private respondent G.M. Wood Export Industries, Inc. through its President and General Manager, private respondent Gonzales, signed and delivered to the petitioner the corresponding documents of trust.
The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment. However, petitioner and private respondents filed a Joint Motion containing stipulations regarding a temporary arrangement between them under which G.M. Wood was allowed to continue with its business operations without, however, prejudicing or jeopardizing petitioner's interest in the attached or garnished properties of G.M. Wood.
The trial court approved the joint motion but lifted partially the attachment levied on private respondent's properties.
Petitioner filed an omnibus motion praying, among others, for: (a) the reconsideration of the above order insofar as it mandated the partial lifting of the writ of attachment and (b) the total reinstatement of the attachment on the properties. The hearing for this motion was postponed three (3) times at the instance of private respondents. On the third time, the hearing was again postponed but private respondents did not appear; petitioner then verbally moved for the submission of the motion for resolution. The formal motion to this effect was likewise filed. The trial court did not act thereon; instead it issued an Order granting private respondents' urgent motion for the release to private respondent Gonzales of the marginal deposit. Petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the motion, which does not even contain the required notice of hearing. Petitioner thus filed a motion for reconsideration which the trial court denied in its order.
Issue: WON there was notice of hearing in the motion
Held:
The trial court then acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the petitioner to release the marginal deposit. What is more reprehensible in the conduct of the trial court is its deliberate failure to act with dispatch on petitioner's motion to reconsider both the Order insofar as it partially lifted the writ of attachment and the approval, ex parte, of the motion to release the marginal deposit. There was, of course, merit in the first motion as the trial court acted rather capriciously when it partially lifted the writ. None of the parties asked for such lifting. On the contrary, in their joint motion, they explicitly agreed a. That the writ of attachment is not hereby lifted by virtue of this temporary arrangement and the attachment/garnishment/levy on the properties of defendant shall subsists. As to the motion for release, SC noted from the Order dated 29 January 1981 that it is denominated as urgent and was filed only on 28 January 1981. Respondents do not deny the fact that no copy thereof was furnished the petitioner; they also do not dispute the fact that no notice of its hearing was indicated in the motion. The movants then deliberately violated the requirement of notice prescribed in Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. This requirement is mandatory. A motion that does not contain a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper; it presents no question which merits the attention and consideration of the court. It is not even a motion for it does not comply with the rules and the clerk of court has no right to receive it. Being a mere scrap of paper, the trial court had no other alternative but to disregard it. Even if the motion contained a notice, still the trial court could not have validly acted on it for, as of the date it acted thereon, no proof of service of the notice on petitioner was shown. Section 6 of the aforecited Rule provides that:
No motion shall be acted upon by the court, without proof of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or parties are not affected.
In this case, the right of the petitioner was definitely affected. That petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider and that it underwent a full-blown hearing did not, contrary to the postulation of the Court of Appeals, cure the fatal error.
No comments:
Post a Comment