LEGAL NOTE 0088: WHICH MOTIONS REQUIRE HEARING AND WHICH MOTIONS NEED NOT BE HEARD?

 

SOURCE: ATTY. FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA VS. JUDGE BLAS O. CAUSAPIN, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA (A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2044, 22 JUNE 2011, LEONARDO – DE CASTRO, J.) SUBJECT: GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW. (BRIEF TITLE: BAUTISTA VS. CAUSAPIN)

=============================

 

CAN DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER BE GRANTED WITHOUT HEARING?

YES. IT IS ONE OF THOSE WHICH A COURT CAN ACT UPON WITHOUT PREJUDICING THE RIGHTS OF THE OTHER PARTY.

Nonetheless, we cannot hold Judge Causapin administratively liable for granting defendants’ motions for extension of time to file answer without hearing and on the same day said motions were filed. 

Atty. Bautista questions defendants’ motions for extension of time to file answer, which did not contain notices of hearing as required by the following provisions under Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Court:

SEC. 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. 

SEC. 5. Notice of hearing. – The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.

As prescribed by the aforequoted provisions, a movant shall set his motion for hearing, unless it is one of those which a court can act upon without prejudicing the rights of the other party. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

WHAT IS THE PREVAILING DOCTRINE ON HEARING RE MOTIONS?

 . . . . . The prevailing doctrine in this jurisdiction is that a motion without a notice of hearing addressed to the parties is a mere scrap of paper.[1][31]   

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR REQUIRING A HEARING?

DUE PROCESS.

The logic for such a requirement is simple: a motion invariably contains a prayer which the movant makes to the court, which is usually in the interest of the adverse party to oppose.  The notice of hearing to the adverse party is therefore a form of due process; it gives the other party the opportunity to properly vent his opposition to the prayer of the movant.  In keeping with the principles of due process, therefore, a motion which does not afford the adverse party the chance to oppose it should simply be disregarded.[2][32]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

IS THE RULE REQUIRING NOTICE OF HEARING APPLICABLE TO ALL MOTIONS?

NO. THERE ARE MOTIONS WHICH MAY HE HEARD EX PARTE AND THEY ARE NON-CONTENTIOUS AND DO NOT AS A RULE INVOLVE THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE OTHER PARTIES IN THE SUIT.

 Yet the rule requiring notice of hearing is not unqualifiedly applicable to all motions, and there are motions which may be heard ex parte, as Rule 15, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Court also clearly acknowledges.  Among the latter class of motions are precisely those seeking extension of time to plead, and the reason these are not strictly held to the requirement of notice is that they are non-contentious and do not as a rule involve the substantial rights of the other parties in the suit. [3][33]  In Amante v. Suñga,[4][34] the Court declared that:

 

The motion for extension of time within which a party may plead is not a litigated motion where notice to the adverse party is necessary to afford the latter an opportunity to resist the application, but an ex parte motion “made to the court in behalf of one or the other of the parties to the action, in the absence and usually without the knowledge of the other party or parties.”  As “a general rule, notice of motion is required where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the motion and principles of natural justice demand that his rights be not affected without an opportunity to be heard…”

It has been said that “ex parte motions are frequently permissible in procedural matters, and also in situations and under circumstances of emergency; and an exception to a rule requiring notice is sometimes made where notice or the resulting delay might tend to defeat the objection of the motion.”[5][35]

 

Considering that a motion for extension of time may be acted upon by the court ex parte or without hearing, then it need not contain a notice of hearing.  It is equally unnecessary for the court to wait until motion day, under Rule 15, Section 7[6][36] of the 1997 Rules of Court, to act on a motion for extension of time.  Therefore, contrary to the finding of the OCA, Judge Causapin did not commit abuse of discretion in granting defendants’ motions for extension of time on the same day said motions were filed and even when the same motions did not contain a notice of hearing.

[1][31]          Basco v. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 671, 685 (2000); Marcos v. Ruiz, G.R. Nos. 70746-47, September 1, 1992, 213 SCRA 177, 192; National Power Corporation v. Jocson, G.R. Nos. 94193-99, February 25, 1992, 206 SCRA 520, 539; Prado v. Veridiano II, G.R. No. 98118, December 6, 1991, 204 SCRA 654, 667; Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Far East Molasses, Corp., G.R. No. 89125, July 2, 1991, 198 SCRA 689, 698; Cui v. Madayag, 314 Phil. 846, 858  (1995).

[2][32]          Atty. Neri v. Judge De la Peña, 497 Phil. 73, 81 (2005).

[3][33]          Denso (Phils.) Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 232 Phil. 256, 266 (1987).

[4][34]          159-A Phil. 474 (1975).

[5][35]         Id. at 476-477.

[6][36]          SECTION 7. Motion day. – Except for motions requiring immediate action, all motions shall be scheduled for hearing on Friday afternoons, or if Friday is a non-working day, in the afternoon of the next working day.