VETTE INDUSTRIAL SALES CO., INC. vs addressed solely to the sound and judicious CHENG discretion of the court; G.R. No. 170232 Dec 5, 2006 4. Where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate [to] the degree of his FACTS: thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed." Cheng filed an action for specific performance and damages against Vette Industrial Sales Co. for breaching their obligation contained in the A notice of hearing is conceptualized as an Memorandum of Agreement. Under the MOA, integral component of procedural due process the company acknowledged owing Cheng a sum intended to afford the adverse parties a chance of money as compensation for the shares he to be heard before a motion is resolved by the transferred, insurance proceeds and signing court. Through such notice, the adverse party is bonus. In their answer with counterclaim, Vettel permitted time to study and answer the Industrial claimed that the shares have already arguments in the motion. When the trial court been paid; that the MOA is unenforceable and received Cheng’s Manifestation and Motion for void. After failing to settle during mediation, the Reconsideration, it did not immediately resolve case was referred back to the court. the motion. Instead, it allowed Vette Industrial to file their comment and also leave to file a rejoinder if Cheng files a reply. On the day of the Pre-trial, Cheng and his counsel Atty. Ferrer failed to appear resulting to the dismissal of the case. Cheng filed a motion The notice requirement is not a ritual to be for reconsideration. Vette Industrial claims that followed blindly. Instead, procedural rules are the motion was procedurally defective because it liberally construed to promote their objective and was not served three days before the date of the to assist in obtaining a just, speedy and hearing and no proof of service was given to the inexpensive determination of any action and court, in violation of Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 15. proceeding. Rules of procedure are but tools The trial court granted the motion. Vette designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, Industrial elevated the case to the CA. The ruling such that when rigid application of the rules tend of the trial court was vacated and Cheng’s to frustrate rather than promote substantial complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Both justice, SC is empowered to suspend their parties assailed the ruling before the SC. operation. Boiser v Judge Aguirre, Jr A.M. No. RTJ-04-1886; May 16, 2005 ISSUE:
Is the rule of notice required under Sections 4
and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court violated? FACTS:
The case stems from an ejectment case filed by
Petitioner Boiser against one Julleza, which was decided in favor of Boiser by the MTC. When the RULING: case reached the RTC on appeal by Julleza, Julleza filed a motion to release bond which was No. Although the Court has consistently held that granted by Respondent Judge. Boiser then filed a motion which does not meet the requirements the instant administrative case against of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Respondent Judge for ignorance of the law, Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, alleging that the motion did not state that he was there are exceptions to the strict application of furnished a copy of the motion thereby depriving this rule: him of his right to due process.
After it was found out by Boiser that Respondent
Judge held in his favor in the decision of his 1. Where a rigid application will result in a ejectment case, Boiser withdrew his manifest failure or miscarriage of justice; administrative complaint. The administrative especially if a party successfully shows that the complaint was still placed under investigation alleged defect in the questioned final and with the CA which held to dismiss the case; the executory judgment is not apparent on its face or case was raised to the Supreme Court for instant from the recitals contained therein; review. 2. Where the interest of substantial justice will be served; ISSUE: Whether or not the administrative case is moot, the petitioner having withdrawn the case On 9 June 2003, respondent filed her Memorandum. On 19 June 2003, the RTC RULING: No, mere desistance on the part of the dismissed the appeal as follows: complainant does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint against any member of Record shows that defendant-appellant received the bench the Notice of Appealed Case, through counsel, on May 19, 2003 (Registry Return Receipt dated May 12, 2003, Record, back of p. 298). Thus, The withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the under Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to Civil Procedure, she had fifteen (15) days or until determine the veracity of the charges made and June 3, 2003 within which to submit a to discipline, such as the results of its memorandum on appeal. As further appears on investigation may warrant, an erring respondent. record, however, the required Memorandum was Even the retirement of respondent does not oust filed by defendant-appellant only on June 9, the Court of its jurisdiction over an administrative 2003 (Record, p. 623), or six (6) days beyond case by the mere fact that the respondent public the expiration of the aforesaid fifteen day period. official ceases to hold office during the pendency of respondent’s case. Aggrieved, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which was granted the petition of respondent. The appellate On deciding the main issue, the Court held that court nullified and set aside Orders of the RTC the Motion to Release Bond was defective, not and ordered the reinstatement of respondent’s having a proper notice of hearing. Not to mention appeal. Consequently, respondent’s appeal the fact that the date and time of the hearing memorandum was admitted and the case were not specified, and that neither complainant remanded to the RTC for further proceedings. nor his counsel was furnished a copy thereof. Hence, this appeal by petitioner. These were never controverted by respondent judge. A motion without notice of hearing is pro Issue: Whether the lack of notice of hearing in forma, a mere scrap of paper. It presents no the Motion for Extension of Time to file question which the court could decide. The court Memorandum on Appeal is fatal, such that the has no reason to consider it and the clerk has no filing of the motion is a worthless piece of paper. right to receive it. Held: In this case, the answer is NO. Petitioner avers that, because of the failure of respondent Sarmiento v. Zaratan to include a Notice of Hearing in her Motion for Facts: Petitioner Gliceria Sarmiento filed an Extension of Time to file Memorandum on ejectment case against respondent Emerita Appeal in the RTC, the latter’s motion is a Zaratan, in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) worthless piece of paper with no legal effect. of Quezon City. On 31 March 2003, the MeTC It is not disputed that respondent perfected her rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. ( MeTC appeal on 4 April 2003 with the filing of her ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff monthly Notice of Appeal and payment of the required rentals and to vacate the premises.) docket fees. However, before the expiration of time to file the Memorandum, she filed a Motion Respondent filed her notice of appeal. for Extension of Time seeking an additional Thereafter, the case was raffled to the RTC of period of five days within which to file her Quezon City. Memorandum, which motion lacked the Notice of Hearing required by Section 4, Rule 15 of the In the Notice of Appealed Case, the RTC 1997 Rules of Court which provides: directed respondent to submit her memorandum SEC. 4. Hearing of Motion. - Except for motions in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(b) which the court may act upon without prejudicing of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court and petitioner to the rights of the adverse party, every written file a reply memorandum within 15 days from motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant. receipt. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served Respondent’s counsel having received the in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the notice on 19 May 2003, he had until 3 June 2003 other party at least three (3) days before the date within which to file the requisite memorandum. of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets But on 3 June 2003, he filed a Motion for the hearing on shorter notice. Extension of Time of five days due to his failure to finish the draft of the said Memorandum. He As may be gleaned above and as held time and cited as reasons for the delay of filing his illness again, the notice requirement in a motion is for one week, lack of staff to do the work due to mandatory. As a rule, a motion without a Notice storm and flood compounded by the grounding of Hearing is considered pro forma and does not of the computers because the wirings got affect the reglementary period for the appeal or wet. But the motion remained unacted. the filing of the requisite pleading. As a general rule, notice of motion is required exception to a rule requiring notice is sometimes where a party has a right to resist the relief made where notice or the resulting delay might sought by the motion and principles of natural tend to defeat the objective of the motion. justice demand that his right be not affected without an opportunity to be heard. The WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby three-day notice required by law is intended not DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and the for the benefit of the movant but to avoid Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby surprises upon the adverse party and to give the AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. latter time to study and meet the arguments of the motion. Principles of natural justice demand that the right of a party should not be affected without giving it an opportunity to be heard. CESAR V. AREZA v. EXPRESS SAVINGS BANK, GR No. 176697, 2014-09-10 The test is the presence of the opportunity to be Facts: heard, as well as to have time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 the grounds upon which it is based. Considering Petitioners Cesar V. Areza and Lolita B. Areza the circumstances of the present case, we maintained two bank deposits with respondent believe that procedural due process was Express Savings Bank's Biñan branch substantially complied with. They were engaged in the business of "buy and There are, indeed, reasons which would warrant sell" of brand new and second-hand motor the suspension of the Rules: (a) the existence of vehicles. On 2 May 2000, they received an special or compelling circumstances, b) the order from a certain Gerry Mambuay (Mambuay) merits of the case, (c) a cause not entirely for the purchase of a second-hand Mitsubishi attributable to the fault or negligence of the party Pajero and a brand-new Honda CRV. favored by the suspension of rules, (d) a lack of The buyer, Mambuay, paid petitioners with nine any showing that the review sought is merely (9) Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) frivolous and dilatory, and (e) the other party will checks payable to different payees and drawn not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. Elements or against the Philippine Veterans Bank (drawee), circumstances (c), (d) and (e) exist in the present each valued at Two Hundred Thousand Pesos case. (P200,000.00) for a total of One Million Eight The suspension of the Rules is warranted in this Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,800,000.00). case. The motion in question does not affect the substantive rights of petitioner as it merely seeks About this occasion, petitioners claimed that to extend the period to file Memorandum. The Michael Potenciano (Potenciano), the branch required extension was due to respondent’s manager of respondent Express Savings Bank counsel’s illness, lack of staff to do the work due (the Bank) was present during the transaction to storm and flood, compounded by the and immediately offered the services of the Bank grounding of the computers. There is no claim for the processing and eventual crediting of the... likewise that said motion was interposed to delay said checks to petitioners' account. the appeal. As it appears, respondent sought petitioners deposited the said checks in their extension prior to the expiration of the time to do savings account with the Bank. The Bank, in so and the memorandum was subsequently filed turn, deposited the checks with its depositary within the requested extended period. Under the bank, Equitable-PCI Bank, in Biñan, Laguna. circumstances, substantial justice requires that Equitable-PCI Bank presented the checks to the we go into the merits of the case to resolve the drawee, the Philippine issue of who is entitled to the possession of the land in question. Veterans Bank, which honored the checks. Potenciano informed petitioners that the checks Further, it has been held that a "motion for they deposited with the Bank were honored. He extension of time x x x is not a litigated motion allegedly warned petitioners that the clearing of where notice to the adverse party is necessary to the checks pertained only to the availability of afford the latter an opportunity to resist the funds and did not mean that the checks were not application, but an ex parte motion made to the infirmed. court in behalf of one or the other of the parties to the action, in the absence and usually without Sometime in July 2000, the subject checks were the knowledge of the other party or parties." As a returned by PVAO to the drawee on the ground general rule, notice of motion is required where a that the amount on the face of the checks was party has a right to resist the relief sought by the altered from the original amount of P4,000.00 to motion and principles of natural justice demand P200,000.00. that his rights be not affected without an the Bank was informed by Equitable-PCI Bank opportunity to be heard. It has been said that "ex that the drawee dishonored the checks on the parte motions are frequently permissible in ground of material alterations. procedural matters, and also in situations and under circumstances of emergency; and an The Bank insisted that they informed petitioners Petitioners filed the present petition for review on of said development in August 2000 by certiorari raising both procedural and substantive furnishing them copies of the documents given issues by its depositary bank.[7] On the other hand, petitioners maintained that the Bank never Issues: informed them of these... developments. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals On 9 March 2001, petitioners issued a check in committed a reversible error of law and grave the amount of P500,000.00. Said check was abuse of discretion in upholding the legality dishonored by the Bank for the reason "Deposit and/or propriety of the Motion for Under Hold. Reconsideration filed in violation of Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules on Civil Procedure According to petitioners, the Bank unilaterally Ruling: and unlawfully put their account with the Bank on hold Sections 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court states: Acting on the alleged arbitrary and groundless Section 5. Notice of hearing. The notice of dishonoring of their checks and the unlawful and hearing shall be addressed to all parties unilateral withdrawal from their savings account, concerned, and shall specify the time and date petitioners filed a Complaint for Sum of Money of the hearing which must not be later than ten with Damages against the Bank and Potenciano (10) days after the filing of the motion. Invoking Article 1977 of the Civil Code, the trial Petitioners claim that the notice of hearing was court stated that the depositary cannot make use addressed to the Clerk of Court and not to the of the thing deposited without the express adverse party as the rules require. Petitioners permission of the depositor. The trial... court add that the hearing on the motion for also held that respondents should have reconsideration was scheduled beyond 10 days observed the 24-hour clearing house rule that from the date of filing. checks should be returned within 24-hours after discovery of the forgery but in no event beyond As held in Maturan v. Araula,[11] the rule the period fixed by law for filing a legal requiring that the notice be addressed to the action. In this case, petitioners deposited... the adverse party has been substantially complied checks in May 2000, and respondents notified with when a copy of the motion for them of the problems on the check three months reconsideration was furnished to the counsel of later or in August 2000. In sum, the trial court the adverse party, coupled with... the fact that characterized said acts of respondents as the trial court acted on said notice of hearing and, attended with bad faith when they debited the as prayed for, issued an order[12] setting the amount of P1,800,000.00 from the account... of hearing of the motion on 26 March 2004. petitioners. We would reiterate later that there is substantial Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration compliance with the foregoing Rule if a copy of while petitioners filed a motion for execution from the said motion for reconsideration was the Decision of the RTC on the ground that furnished to the counsel of the adverse party. respondents' motion for reconsideration did not To recap, the drawee bank, Philippine Veterans conform with Section 5, Rule 16 of the Rules of Bank in this case, is only liable to the extent of Court; hence, it was a mere scrap of... paper that the check prior to alteration. Since Philippine did not toll the running of the period to appeal. Veterans Bank paid the altered amount of the RTC, through Pairing Judge Romeo C. De Leon check, it may pass the liability back as it did, to granted the motion for reconsideration, set aside Equitable-PCI Bank, the... collecting bank. The the Pozas Decision, and dismissed the collecting banks, Equitable-PCI Bank and the complaint. The trial court awarded respondents Bank, are ultimately liable for the amount of the their counterclaim of moral and exemplary materially altered check. It cannot further pass damages of P100,000.00... each. the liability back to the petitioners absent any showing in the negligence on the part of the... The trial court first applied the principle of petitioners which substantially contributed to the liberality when it disregarded the alleged loss from alteration. absence of a notice of hearing in respondents' motion for reconsideration. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Pozas decision only insofar as it ordered respondents On the merits, the trial court considered the to jointly and severally pay petitioners relationship of the Bank and petitioners with P1,800,000.00, representing the amount respect to their... savings account deposits as a withdrawn from the latter's account. We do not contract of loan with the bank as the debtor and conform with said ruling regarding the finding... petitioners as creditors. of bad faith on the part of respondents, as well On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the as its failure to observe the 24-hour clearing rule. ruling of the trial court but deleted the award of WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. damages. Microsoft vs Farajallah FACTS Microsoft Corporation and Adobe CA said that hearsay info can be basis for Systems Incorporated (petitioners) are issuance of search warrant if followed up corporations organized and existing under personally and validated. It is clear from the laws of the United States. Microsoft evidence that Padilla and company were Corporation is the owner of all rights able to personally verify the informant’s including copyright relating to all versions tip. and editions of Microsoft software and the So there was probable case for issuance corresponding user’s manuals, and the of search warrant and requirement of registered owner of the “Microsoft” “MS personal knowledge is satisfied. DOS” trademarks in the Philippines. Adobe Systems Incorporated is the owner of all rights including copyright relating to all versions and editions of Adobe Software. Samir Farajallah, et al (respondents) are the directors and officers of New Fields (Asia Pacific), Inc., a domestic corporation Petitioners claim that in September 2009, they were informed that New Fields was unlawfully reproducing and using unlicensed versions of their software. Orion Support Inc was asked by petitioners to assist in the verification of this information. Hired Serrano and Moradoz to detect unauthorized copies of Microsoft and Adobe. Case was assigned to police inspector Padilla (trained also to distinguish original from counterfeit software) 3 of them went to NF. Using legitimate business pretext, they were able to use 2 of NF’s computers and found that there are at least 2 computers using the same product identification and/serial numbers of MS and Adobe. This indicates that the software is being illegally produced or copied NF is using only one installer - first 3 sets of numbers of product ID is the same All 90 computers of NF did not have cert of authenticity by MS Search warrant apps filed, several items seized (17 CD installers, 83 Computers) RTC ruled to quash all warrants and directing that “all items to be seized should be returned” bec they should have identified and specified the computers they were taking. CA affirmed ISSUE/S W/N lower courts committed GAD in granting Motion to quash despite having probable cause and personal knowledge of the warrant applicant - YES RULING: Petition GRANTED RATIO we find reason to overturn the rulings of the RTC and CA, since there was grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts. The CA sustained the quashal of the warrant because the witnesses had “no personal knowledge of the facts upon which the issuance of the warrants may be justified,” and the applicants and the witnesses merely relied on the screen shots acquired from the confidential informant.
Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc., Petitioner vs. Hon. Pedro M. Gimenez As Auditor General and Ismael Mathay As Auditor of The Central Bank of The Philippines, Respondents