Você está na página 1de 1

AZAJAR VS. CA HELD: Yes.

Although the Court sided with CA that technicalities should be


set aside to Samco to be afforded with his day in court.
FACTS:
1. The law explicitly requires that notice of motion shall be served by
1. Azajar purchased thru the agent of Cham Samco 100 kegs of nails the appellant to all parties concerned at least 3 days before the hearing,
of various sizes and paid P18,000 in full. However, Cham Samco only together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers
delivered a part of the quantity ordered. Azajar filed a complaint before accompanying it; and that notices shall be directed to the parties
the CFI of Cam Sur. concerned stating the time and place for the hearing of the motion.
2. Instead of submitting an answer, Samco filed a motion to dismiss Failure to comply with the requirement is a fatal flaw.
on two grounds: failure of the complaint to state a cause of action and 2. Such notice is required to avoid surprises upon the opposite party
that venue was improperly laid. and give the latter time to study and meet the arguments of the motion
3. The motion to dismiss contained a notice addressed to the Clerk of as well as to determine or make determinable the time of submission of
Court. the motion for resolution.

4. Contending that such notice was fatally defective, Azajar filed a 3. Without the notice, the occasion would not arise to determine with
motion to declare Samco in default, which the court granted. Azajar was reasonable certitude whether and within what time the adverse party
allowed to present evidence ex parte and the court rendered judgment would respond to the motion, and when the motion might already be
against Samco. resolved by the Court.

5. The TC justified its order of default in this wise: that instead of 4. The duty to give that notice is imposed on the movant and not on
filling an answer to the complaint, Samco filed a motion to dismiss which the court.
is not a motion at all because the “notice” is directed to the Clerk of Court
instead of the party concerned (as required by Sec.5, Rule 15, RC) and is
without the requisite notice of hearing directed to the CC and not to the
parties, and merely stating that the same be submitted for resolution. It
is without the requisite notice of time and place of hearing.

6. Aggrieved, Samco went to CA for recourse, but the CA affirmed the


decision of the TC. However, on motion for reconsideration, CA reversed
itself and declared that technicalities should be brushed aside so that
Samco can be given a day in court.

ISSUE: WON the failure of Cham Samco to set its motion to dismiss for
hearing on a specified date and time and for not addressing the same to
the party interested is fatal to his cause.