Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Digest Laude Vs Ginez-Jabalde

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    547 views2 pages
    The court ruled that the failure of the petitioners to provide the required three-day notice for their motion cannot be excused. The Rules of Court clearly mandate at least three days notice to the adverse party prior to a motion hearing. Providing notice only at the hearing deprived the adverse party of their right to procedural due process, as they were not given sufficient time to study the motion and prepare a response. Exceptions to the notice rule are not allowed if they cause prejudice to the other party or violate their due process rights.

    Original Description:

    Procedure: 3-day notice rule

    Original Title

    Digest Laude vs Ginez-Jabalde

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court ruled that the failure of the petitioners to provide the required three-day notice for their motion cannot be excused. The Rules of Court clearly mandate at least three days notice to the adverse party prior to a motion hearing. Providing notice only at the hearing deprived the adverse party of their right to procedural due process, as they were not given sufficient time to study the motion and prepare a response. Exceptions to the notice rule are not allowed if they cause prejudice to the other party or violate their due process rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    547 views2 pages

    Digest Laude Vs Ginez-Jabalde

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    The court ruled that the failure of the petitioners to provide the required three-day notice for their motion cannot be excused. The Rules of Court clearly mandate at least three days notice to the adverse party prior to a motion hearing. Providing notice only at the hearing deprived the adverse party of their right to procedural due process, as they were not given sufficient time to study the motion and prepare a response. Exceptions to the notice rule are not allowed if they cause prejudice to the other party or violate their due process rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Laude vs Ginez-Jabalde

    Issue: Whether or not the failure to meet the three-day notice rule for filing motions can be ex-
    cused in this case

    Ruling:

    The failure of petitioners to comply with the three-day notice rule is unjustified.

    Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court clearly makes it a mandatory rule that the ad-
    verse party be given notice of hearing on the motion at least three days prior.

    Section 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act
    upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion
    shall be set for hearing by the applicant.

    Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof
    shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least
    three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the
    hearing on shorter notice.

    Failure to comply with this notice requirement renders the motion defective consistent
    with protecting the adverse party's right to procedural due process.

    As an integral component of procedural due process, the three- day notice required by the
    Rules is not intended for the benefit of the movant. Rather, the requirement is for the purpose of
    avoiding surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party, who must be given time to study
    and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the court.

    While the general rule is that a motion that fails to comply with the requirements of Rule
    15 is a mere scrap of paper, an exception may be made and the motion may still be acted upon by
    the court, provided doing so will neither cause prejudice to the other party nor violate his or her
    due process rights. The adverse party must be given time to study the motion in order to enable
    him or her to prepare properly and engage the arguments of the movant. In this case, the general
    rule must apply because Pemberton was not given sufficient time to study petitioners' Motion,
    thereby depriving him of his right to procedural due process.

    Petitioners admit that they personally furnished Pemberton a copy of Motion only during
    the hearing. They attempt to elude the consequences of this belated notice by arguing that they
    also served a copy of the Motion by registered mail on Pemberton's counsel and by making a
    reference to the Christmas season and the "series of legal holidays” where courts would be
    closed.
    These circumstances taken together do not cure the Motion's deficiencies. Even granting
    that Pemberton's counsel was able to comment on the motion orally during the hearing, which
    incidentally was set for another incident, it cannot be said that Pemberton was able to study and
    prepare for his counterarguments to the issues raised in the Motion.

    You might also like