Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digest Laude Vs Ginez-Jabalde
Digest 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.