Notice of Hearing Jurisprudence

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied

to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A
formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The
requirements are satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. What is frowned upon
is the absolute lack of notice or hearing. (Celebrity Sports Plaza, Inc. v. Barin,
|||

G.R. No. 205616 (Notice), [December 10, 2014])

Han-Phil essentially argues that TDI filed a defective motion to dismiss because it
scheduled it for hearing beyond the ten (10)-day period in violation of Section
5, 9 Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The subsequent action taken
by the RTC-Batangas on such defective motion did not cure the flaw because a
motion with a fatally defective notice was a useless scrap of paper which the
court had no authority to act on. (Han-Phil Industries, Inc. v. Technology
|||

Developers, Inc., G.R. No. 206608 (Notice), [August 13, 2014])

"In New Japan Motors, Inc. v. Perucho, 20 defendant filed a motion for
reconsideration which did not contain any notice of hearing. In a petition
for certiorari, we affirmed the lower court in ruling that a motion for
reconsideration that did not contain a notice of hearing was a useless
scrap of paper. We held further

LexLib

'Under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, . . . a

motion

is

required

to

be

accompanied

by

a notice of hearing which must be served by the applicant on all

parties

concerned

at

least

three

(3)

days

before

the hearing thereof. Section 6 of the same rule commands that

"(n)o motion shall be acted upon by the Court, without
proof of service of the notice thereof . . .." It is therefore patent
that

the

motion

for

reconsideration

in

question

is fatally defective for it did not contain any notice of hearing. We

have already consistently held in a number of cases that the
requirements of Sections

4,

and

6 of Rules

15 of the

Rules of Court are mandatory and that failure to comply with the
same is fatal to movant's cause.
|||

(Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130314, [September 22, 1998])

"In Sembrano v. Ramirez, 22 we declared that

'(A) motion without notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper. It
does

not

toll

the

running of the

period of appeal.

This

requirement of notice of hearing equally applies to a motion for

reconsideration. Without such notice, the motion is pro forma. And
a pro forma motion for reconsideration does not suspend the
running of the period to appeal.'
|||

(Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130314, [September 22, 1998])

"In In re Almacen, 23 defendant lost his case in the lower court. His
counsel then filed a motion for reconsideration but did not notify the
adverse counsel of the time and place of hearing of said motion. The

Court of Appeals dismissed the motion for the reason that 'the motion for
reconsideration dated July 5, 1966 does not contain a notice of time and
place of hearing thereof and is, therefore a useless piece of paper which
did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, consequently,
the appeal was perfected out of time.' When the case was brought to us,
we reminded counsel for the defendant that
'As a law practitioner who was admitted to the bar as far back as
1941, Atty. Almacen knew or ought to have known that [for]
a

motion

for

reconsideration

to

stay

the

running of the

period of appeal, the movant must not only serve a copy of the
motion upon the adverse party . . . but also notify the adverse
party of the time and place of hearing . . .'
|||

(Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130314, [September 22, 1998])

Jurisprudence confirms that the requirements laid down in Sections 4, 5, and 6,

Rule 15 of the Rules of Court that the notice of hearing shall be directed to the
parties

concerned,

and

shall

state

the

time

and

place for the hearing of the motion, are mandatory. If not religiously complied
with,

they

render

the motion pro

the motion is a useless piece of paper that will not toll

forma.
the

As

such,

running of the

prescriptive period. (City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No.

|||

168973, [August 24, 2011], 671 PHIL 610-637)