Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

1. Fajardo v CA RULING: YES.

A motion without notice

of hearing is pro forma, a mere scrap of
Facts: Respondent Bugaring filed for paper.
collection of attorney’s fees with RTC-
QC against Fajardo. He alleged that Section 4 and 5 of Rule 15 provide that
having represented her in various cases every written motion be set for hearing
and despite demands, Fajardo refused by the movant, except those motions
to pay legal service fees and other which the court may act upon without
expenses or costs. After presentation of prejudicing the rights of the adverse
evidence ex parte, RTC ordered Fajardo party and the notice of hearing must be
to pay P3.5M for attorney’s fees addressed to all parties and must
covering civil cases plus interests. specify the time and date of the hearing.

On December 10, 1997 respondent filed ITC, the motion for correction of
for correction of judgment. On February judgment was defective as it lacks the
3, 1998, petitioner alleged she has required proper notice of hearing. It
received the decision only on January failed to specify the date and time of
19 and filed a notice of appeal which hearing on the motion. All these were
was denied because of the pending not controverted by Bugaring.
motion for correction of judgment. In its
revised decision, RTC ordered 2. PHILBANKING v CA
respondent to pay Bugaring attorney’s Facts: Marcos filed with the RTC
fees covering the legal cases which the collection suit with damages against
latter handled in her favor. BANK. He alleged that sometime in
Subsequently, a writ of execution was 1982, he was convinced by the bank
issued. official who was also his close friend to
Petitioner appealed to CA to annul the make time deposits earning at 17% per
orders and resolution issued by the annum and maturing after 90 days, on
RTC. She argued that TC erred when it two occasions. He was issued an OR on
denied her notice to appeal because of the first time depo while the second time
the pendency of correction of judgment depo he was issued only with a letter-
because she was not furnished a copy certification acknowledging said deposit.
of it. CA denied her appeal; affirmed IN March 1983, instead of withdrawing
RTC’s decision that her notice to appeal his deposits and their interests he was
has been filed PREMATURELY due to persuaded by his friend Pagsaligan this
the pendency of correction of judgment. time to open several letters of credit SO
he signed blank printed forms for letters
ISSUE: Whether the motion to correct of credit, trust receipts agreements, and
judgment was defective. PN. Later on, Marcos accused the
BANK of unjustly demanding payment of
his debt and unlawful charging of
interest. He claimed before the RTC to **The lifting of the order of default does
annul PN and to order the bank to pay not follow that the restoration of the right
him his time deposits with interests. to cross-examine. While the right to
cross-examine is a vital element of
For belatedly filing its answer, the Bank procedural due process, the right does
was declared in default which was later not necessarily require an actual cross-
lifted. The BANK refuted the allegations, examination, but merely an opportunity
that Marcos freely entered into TRA and to exercise this right if desired by the
that the instant case is only an attempt party entitled to it. When the Bank was
to escape his criminal liability under previously held in default, it lost its right
Trust Receipt Agreement. On March 5, and even thereafter, failed to exhaust
1990, it filed a motion to cross-examine the remedies to secure the exercise of
Marcos which was denied because such right at the earliest.
there was no proof of service to Marcos.
Later, the TC decided in favor of
Marcos. CA modified the decision as to FACTS:
the amount of damages. As to the
motion to cross-examine, it ruled that The case stemmed from an unlawful
the right is fundamental and the BANK detainer case filed by Montemayor
did not waive such right. The motion is which was decided by Judge Bermejo.
one of the non-litigated motions that do In said case, judgement was rendered in
not require notice of hearing to the other favor of Montemayor. On December 12,
party. 2000, Montemayor filed his first Motion
for Execution and set hearing on
ISSUE: Whether right to due process December 16, 2000. However, the
was violated when motion to cross- motion was not included since the date
examine was denied. was not a Motion day.

RULING: No. He filed his second Motion for Execution

dated December 26, 2000 and set
A MOTION to examine is adversarial. hearing on January 3, 2000.
The adverse party has the right not only Montemayor also filed a Motion to
to prepare a meaningful opposition to Require Defendants’ Counsel to Inform
the motion but also to be informed that the Court the Date He Received a Copy
his witness is being recalled for cross- of the Judgement. Judge Bermejo
examination, therefore, proof of service however did not act on both motions. It
is indispensable. was Judge Bermejo’s contention that
ITC, the TC was correct in denying the since the respondents had already filed
motion. an appeal and posted a supersedeas
bond, the Motion for Execution could not
be acted upon.
On January 21, 2003 Judge Bermejo schedule the Motions for Execution.
then issued an order giving due course However, even if the Judge did not
to defendants’ appeal and required them share this view, he could have
to post a supersedeas bond. On scheduled Petitioner’s motion on the
Febuary 24, 2003, Montemayor then next working day.
filed his second Motion to Require
Defendants’ Counsel to Inform the Court 4 FAVIS V GONZALES
the Date He Received a Copy of the FACTS:
Judgement and third Motion for
Execution. Judge Bermejo also granted Dr. Favis, the deceased, died intestate.
a motion for extension in favor of His first marriage with Capitolina bore
respondents to which the latter may post seven (7) children whom are the
its supersedeas bond on May 12, 2003. petitioners herein. When Capitolina
died, he married Juana, and begot a son
Montemayor now files the present name Mariano, the respondent in this
administrative case against Judge case. Dr. Favis left behind several
Bermejo for his failure to act upon the properties, during his bedridden stage,
three Motions for Execution and 2 he allegedly executed a Deed of
Motions to Request Defendants’ Donation in favor of respondents.
Counsel to Inform the Court He Petitioners claiming that the donation
Received a Copy of Judgement. OCA prejudiced their legitime, they filed with
resolved to impose 5000 peso fine. the RTC an an action to annul said
ISSUE: Did Judge Bermejo commit donation.
unethical practice? The RTC granted petitioners’ petition
RULING: and declared the Deed of Donation as
null and void considering that when Dr.
Yes. The Rules of Court require that all Favis executed the donation, he was
motions shall be scheduled on a hearing aged 92 and plagued with illnesses.
day which is on Friday afternoons or if Therefore, he could not have full control
Friday is a non-working holiday, in the of his faculties.
afternoon of the next working day,
except for motions requiring immediate On appeal, the Court of Appeals,
action. challenged the trial court’s nullification.
The Court of Appeals motu proprio
Judge Bermejo should have taken into ordered the dismissal of the complaint
account that the Rules of Court provide for failure to alleged earnest efforts
if judgement is rendered against the toward a compromise have been
defendant in an ejectment suit, complied with.
execution shall issue immediately upon
motion. Therefore, there was no need to Petitioners now question the propriety of
the dismissal.
ISSUE: May the Court dismiss motu
proprio a case on the ground of failure
to aver that a condition precedent has
not been complied with?


No. Under the Omnibus Motion Rule, all

objections and defenses not raised in a
motion to dismiss or in an aswer are
deemed waived, except for the following
grounds: (1) Lack of jurisdiction; (2) litis
pendentia; (3) res judicata; and (4)

In the instant case, no motion to dismiss

was filed based on the failure to comply
with condition precedent; such failure
was never assigned as error in the
Court of Appeals. It was erroneous then
for the Court of Appeals to have motu
proprio dismissed the appeal of
petitioners based on the Omnibus
Motion Rule where none of the following
exceptions are present.