CABRERA VS NG (DIGEST)

The case is about a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court seekingto annul and set aside the Decision dated October 21, 2009 as well as
theCA Resolution datedMarch 26, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 03392. The CA denied
the petition for certiorari filed byMarylou Cabrera (petitioner), which assailed the
Order dated December 19, 2007 of theRegional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City,
Branch 56, in Civil Case No. MAN-4773.
FACTS:
That on February 14, 2004, Felix Ng (respondent) filed a complaint for sum of
moneywith the RTC against the petitioner and her husband Marionilo Cabrera
(spouses Cabrera).Alleging therespondent issued 3 Metrobank checks as payment
by the respondent. Therespondent admitted issuing 2 out of the 3 checks through
their son Richar Ng. All of the checkswere dishonored for the reason that the
accounts where the checks were to be drawn werealready closed which was later
admitted. The respondent denied the issuing the 3
rd
MetrobankCheck with No. 0244745. The respondent, alleged that 3
rd
check was forcibly taken from themby their son Richard Ng.

On August 7, 2007, the RTC ordered the spouses Cabrera to pay the respondent
the amount ofthe 3
rd
check plus legal interest from inception of the obligation until fully paid, moral
damagesin the amount of P
50,000.00, attorney’s fees of
P20,000.00 anditigation expenses in the amount

ofP10,000.00.

On August 14, 2007, the spouses Cabrera filed with the RTC a motion for
reconsideration,whichthey set for hearing on August 17, 2007. On the same date,
the spouses Cabrera sent a copy oftheir motion for reconsideration to the
respondent thru registered mail which eventuallyreceived by the respondent on
August 21, 2007.The motion was not heard on the followingdates August 17, 2007,
August 28, 2007, and September 25, 2007.
On October 26, 2007, the RTC issued an Order, which directed the parties to file
their additionalpleadings, after which the motion for reconsideration filed by the
spouses Cabrera would bedeemed submitted for resolution.On December 19, 2007,
the RTC issued an Order denying the motion for reconsideration filed bythe
spouses Cabrera. The RTC stated that the spouses Cabrera violated
Section 4, Rule 15 of theRules of Court, which mandates that every motion
required to be heard should be served bythe movant in such a manner as to ensure
its receipt by the other party at least three daysbefore the date of hearing.
 Thus exceeding the 3 day period on notice and hearing as requiredby law.The
record reveals that the
instant motion was mailed to the plaintiff’s counsel on August 14,
2007the hearing was set on August 17, 2007. The copy of the said motion had
reached plaintiffand his counsel only on August 17, 2007, 4 days after it was
supposed to be heard.The RTC opined a motion as a mere scrap of paper not
entitled to judicial cognizance having notmet the required period for filing the
requisite pleadings. The RTC held, its Decision datedAugust 7, 2007 had already
become final for failure of the spouses Cabrera to comply with thethree-day
notice requirement.The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorariwith the CA,
alleging that the RTC gravelyabused its discretion in denying her motion for
reconsideration. The petitioner pointed out thatthe RTC did not actually conduct a
hearing on her motion for reconsideration on August 17,2007;that her motion for
reconsideration was actually heard on October 26, 2007, after therespondent had
already filed his opposition. Thus, the petitioner claimed, the issue of her failureto
comply with the three-day notice requirement had already been rendered moot. In
any case,the petitioner asserted, the RTC should have resolved her motion for
reconsideration on itsmerits rather than simply denying it on mere technicality.On
October 21, 2009, the CA, denied the petition for certiorari filed by the
petitioner. Accordingto the CA the RTC did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion for reconsideration filed bythe spouses Cabrera, that it merely applied the
three-day notice requirement under Section 4,Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Thus:
On record It appears that petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was set for
hearing on 17
August 2007. The copy thereof was mailed to private respondent on 14 August
2007, and thatthe private respondent actually received his copy only on 21 August
2007 or four (4) days afterthe set date of hearing. Thus, depriving him of the
opportunity to oppose the motion.Respondent court, therefore, correctly held that
such motion violated the three (3)-day noticerule; the essence of due process.
Respondent court had applied said rule to the given situation,and of no doubt, mere
adherence to the rules cannot be considered grave abuse of discretionon the part
of the respondent court. The petitioner sought a reconsideration of the
Decisiondated October 21, 2009 but was denied by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the CA erred in affirming the RTC order dated December 19,
2007,denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the spouses Cabrera.
HELD
: The petition is meritorious.The Court has indeed held, that under Sections 4 and
5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court,mandatory is the requirement in a motion, which
is rendered defective by failure to comply withthe requirement. As a rule, a motion
without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma anddoes not affect the
reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading.Asan
integral component of the procedural due process, the three-day notice required
by theRules is not intended for the benefit of the movant. Rather the
requirement is for the purpose ofavoiding surprises that may be sprung upon the
adverse party, who must be given time to studyand meet the arguments in the
motion before a resolution of the court. Principles of natural justice demand that
the right of a party should not be affected without giving it an opportunityto be
heard.The test is the presence of opportunity to be heard, as well as to have time
to study the motionand meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon which
it is based.It is undisputed thatthe hearing on the motion for reconsideration filed
by the spouses Cabrera was reset by the RTC
twice with due notice to the parties that it was only on October 26, 2007 that the
motion wasactually heard by the RTC. More than two months had passed since the
respondent received acopy of the said motion for reconsideration on August 21,
2007. The respondent was thus givensufficient time to study the motion and to
enable him to meet the arguments interposedtherein. Indeed, the respondent was
able to file his opposition thereto on September 20, 2007.Notwithstanding that
the respondent received a copy of the said motion for reconsiderationfour days
after the date set by the spouses Cabrera for the hearing thereof, his right to
dueprocess was not impinged as he was afforded the chance to argue his position.
Thus, the R TCerred in denying the spouses Cabrera's motion for reconsideration
based merely on their failureto comply with the three-day notice requirement.The
petition was granted by the Supreme Court thus reversing and setting aside the
CAresolutions dated October 21, 2009 and March 26, 2012. The SC remanded the
case to theRegional Trial Court of Mandaue City, to resolve the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by thespouses Cabrera on the merits within five (5) days
from the finality of this Decision.
SEBASTIAN VS MORALES (Digest)
FACTS: Private respondents are the heirs of the late Guillermo Sarenas, who died
intestate onJune 27, 1986. During his lifetime, Guillermo owned agricultural
landholdings, all located inSamon and Mayapyap Sur, Cabanatuan city. Guillermo was
also the registered owner of parcelof agricultural land located in San Ricardo,
Talaver, Nueva Ecija having a total area of 4.9993hectares, which was tenanted by
Manuel Valentin and WenceslaoPeneyra. The said tenantstilling the said farm lots
had already been issued emancipation patents pursuant to PD No 27.The private
respondents filed an application with the DAR Regional Office in San Fernando,
Pampanga, for retention over the five hectares of the late Guillermo’s landholdings.
Among the lots which the private respondents sought to retain under Section 6 of
the CARP (RANo. 6657).On June 6, 1997, The DAR Regional Office in San
Fernando, Pampangan granted the private
respondents’ application. Petitioner, Sebastian moved for reconsideration of the
said forgoing
order before the DAR Regional Director. The DAR Regional Director found out
that the order wascontrary to law violating Section 6 of RA No. 6657 and its
implementing Rules and Regulations.He, the DAR Regional Director, then issued a
new order dated October 23, 1997, which theninstead allowed private respondents
to retain a parcel of the said land with an area of 4.9993hectares, covered by TCT
No. 143564, located in San Ricardo, Talavera, NuevaEcija. The privaterespondents
then appealed the order to the DAR secretary. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petition is valid and
proper?
HELD:
No. Section 61 of RA No. 6657 clearly mandates that judicial review of DAR orders
ordecisions are governed by the Rules of Court. The rules direct that it is Rule 43
that governs theprocedure for Judicial review of decisions, orders, or resolutions
of the DAR Secretary. Bypursuing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
rather than the mandatory petition forreview under Rule 43, the petitioner opted
for the wrong mode of appeal. Pursuant to thefourth paragraph of the Supreme
Court Circular No 2-90, an appeal taken to the Supreme Courtor to the Court of
Appeals by wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. Therefore, wehold that
the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing CA-GR SP
No51288for failure of the petitioners to pursue the proper mode of appeal.
Wherefore, the instantpetition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals as well as the resolution of theappellate court dated December 10, 1999 is
AFFRIMED