A motion is an application for relief other than by a pleading. (Sec. 1, Rule 15) Form
General rule: All motions shall be in writing.
Exceptions:
(1) Motions made in open court or
(2) Motions made in the course of a hearing or trial. (Sec. 2, Rule 15) Generally
The Rules applicable to pleadings shall apply to written motions so far as concerns (1) caption,
(2) designation, (3) signature, and
(4) other matters of form. (Sec. 10, Rule 15) May be oral
General rule: All motions shall be in writing.
Exception Motions made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial. (Sec. 2, Rule 15)
Motion for leave
A motion for leave to file a pleading or motion shall be accompanied by the pleading or motion sought to be admitted. (Sec. 9, Rule 15)
Prohibited motion
The following pleadings and motions are prohibited in a summary procedure:
(1) Motion to dismiss except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and failure to comply with barangay conciliation proceedings;
(2) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(3) Petition for relief from judgment;
(4) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits and other papers;
(5) Memoranda;
(6) Petition for certiorari, and mandamus or prohibition against an interlocutory order of the court;
(7) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(8) Dilatory motions for postponement (9) Reply;
(10) Third-party complaints;
(11) Interventions.
The following are prohibited in Small Claims Cases:
(1) Motion to dismiss the complaint, except on ground of lack of jurisdiction’
(2) Motion for bill of particulars;
(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(4) Petition for relief from judgment;
(5) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits and other papers;
(6) Memoranda;
(7) Petition for certiorari, and mandamus or prohibition against an interlocutory order of the court;
(8) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(9) Dilatory motions for postponement (10) Reply;
(11) Third-party complaints;
(12) Interventions.
Contents A motion shall
(1) state the relief sought to be obtained (2) the grounds upon which it is based, and
(3) shall be accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers, if required by these Rules or necessary to prove facts alleged therein. (Sec. 3, Rule 15)
Omnibus motion rule
A motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived. (Sec. 8, Rule 15)
Exceptions
The court shall dismiss the claim when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that (1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
(2) there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that (3) the action is barred by a prior judgment or
(4) barred by the statute of limitations. (Sec. 1, Rule 9) Notice of hearing
General Rule: Every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Exception: Motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party.
(Sec. 4, Rule 15)
NOTE: Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served (1) in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party
(2) at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
Notice of hearing—
The notice of hearing shall be
(1) addressed to all parties concerned, and
(2) shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
(Sec. 5, Rule 15)
General rule: without compliance — scrap of paper
A motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 is a mere scrap of paper which the clerk of court has not right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon.
Defective notice of hearing VICTORY LINER, INC. v. MALINIAS (2007)
Under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 15, the notice of hearing shall be addressed to the parties concerned and shall specify the time and date of the hearing of the motion;
no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party are not affected.
FACTS: A vehicular collision happened between petitioner Victory Liner, Inc. (VLI) and an Isuzu Truck used by respondent Michael Malinias. No one died, but both vehicles were damaged. Malinias filed a complaint for damages against petitioner and the bus driver, Leoncio Bulaong with the MTC, alleging pecuniary damage to the truck worth P47,180 representing lost income for the non-use of the truck. After pre-trial, the bus driver was dropped as defendant in the case.
During trial, respondent finished presenting his evidence and rested his case. Counsel for petitioner VLI filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, but the same was denied. When the case was called for reception of petitioner’s evidence, no appearance was made for the bus company. Respondent thus moved that petitioner be declared to have waived its right to adduce evidence in its favor. The case was deemed submitted for judgment and the MTC ruled in favor of respondent Malinias, ordering VLI to pay him.
VLI’s new counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Notice of Hearing therein stated: "Please submit the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration for hearing before the CA at a schedule and time convenient to the Court and the parties.” The MTC ruled that the notice did not conform with the mandatory requirements of Section 5, Rule 15, and that the motion was thus a mere scrap of paper which did not suspend the period to appeal.
Petitioner VLI thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal and a motion for the inhibition by the MTC, which was granted. The case was assigned to a new MTC judge, who was tasked to rule on the Notice of Appeal. The MTC ruled that it had been filed beyond the reglementary period. Again, the MTC reiterated its initial judgment in favor of Malinias since the fatally defective MR did not toll the reglementary period for appeal.
The RTC affirmed the judgment of the MTC and held the decision final and executory.
ISSUE: Whether the Notice of Hearing filed was defective
YES. The most crucial failure on the part of petitioner was to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the MTC Judgment which contained a defective Notice of Hearing, failing as it did to set a date for hearing. Under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 15, the notice of hearing shall be addressed to the parties concerned and shall specify the time and date of the hearing of the motion; no
motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party are not affected. Unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing, the court will be unable to determine whether the adverse party agrees or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the rules themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition.
Not only did the defect render the motion for reconsideration itself unworthy of consideration, it more crucially failed to toll the period to appeal. A motion without a notice of hearing is pro forma, a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the period to appeal, and upon the expiration of the 15-day period, the questioned order or decision becomes final and executory.
That did not mean that petitioner was left bereft of further remedies under our Rules. For one, petitioner could have assailed the MTC’s denial of the Motion for Reconsideration through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the MTC in denying the motion. If that remedy were successful, the effect would have been to void the MTC’s denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, thus allowing petitioner to again pursue such motion as a means towards the filing of a timely appeal.
Another remedy for the petitioner is found under Rule 38, which governs petitions for relief from judgment. Indeed, Section 2, Rule 38 finds specific application in this case, as it provides that "[w]hen a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal, he may file a petition [for relief from denial of appeal] in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course."36 Such petition should be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment or final order, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered. The facts of this case indicate that petitioner could have timely resorted to this remedy.
Exceptions
Motions which may be granted ex parte
An ex parte motion does not require that parties be hard. An example is a motion to set the case for pre-trial.
NOTE: A motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a summary judgment are litigated motions.
Where adverse party had opportunity to oppose LANTO v. DIMAPORO
(16 SCRA 599, 1966)
Existence of a cause of action or lack of it is determined by a reference to the facts averred in the challenged pleading. The question raised in the motion is purely one of law. In this posture, oral arguments on the motion are reduced to an unnecessary ceremony and should be overlooked.
FACTS: Resolution No. 7, adopted by the Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte, reverted a previous salary appropriation for the position of Assistant Provincial Assessor to the general fund. In effect, that position then held by petitioner was then abolished.
He sought relief to various government officials, including the President but was disappointed. He then went to the court seeking mandamus praying for annulment of the resolution, payment of backwages, restatement of salary appropriations as well as reinstatement.
Respondents moved to dismiss stating lack of cause of action. Petitioner’s counsel moved to postpone the hearing, but failed to appear. The court below granted such motion and dismissed said petition. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether the dismissal order issued without any hearing on the motion to dismiss is void
NO. Petitioner was given the chance to adduce his case, yet it is because of his constant absences that he was unable to present his arguments. One good reason for the statutory requirement of hearing on a motion is to enable the suitors to adduce evidence to support their claims. But here the Motion to Dismiss is grounded on the lack of cause of action. Existence of a cause of action or lack of it is determined by a reference to the facts averred in the challenged pleading. The question raised in the motion is purely one of law. In this posture, oral arguments on the motion are reduced to an unnecessary ceremony and should be overlooked. The hearing for the Motion to Dismiss was set, yet the petitioner failed to appear (only his counsel showed up).
Moreover, without any clear showing to the contrary, there is a presumption of regularity within the actions of the court with regard to entertaining motions. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to show irregularity within the courts.
VLASON ENTERPRISES CORP v. CA (330 SCRA 26, 1999)
(1) Where the counsel failed object on the ground of lack of notice to a Motion addressed to a former counsel, and was granted by the trial court 30 days to file his opposition to it, the circumstances clearly justify a departure from the literal application of the notice of hearing rule.
(2) The issuance of an order of default is a condition sine qua non in order that a judgment by default be clothed with validity.
Furthermore, it is a legal impossibility to declare a party-defendant to be in default before it was validly served summons.
FACTS: Duraproof sought to enforce its preferred salvors lien by filing with the RTC a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the actions of the Customs Officers in forfeiting the vessel and cargo owned by Omega, which Duraproof contracted to repair. It impleaded PPA and Med Line Philippines, Inc. as respondents.
Duraproof amended its petition to include the former District Collector, and other companies involved, including Vlason Enterprises. In both Petitions, Duraproof failed to allege anything pertaining to Vlason Enterprises, or any prayer for relief against it.
Summonses for the amended Petition were served. Duraproof moved several times to declare the respondents it impleaded in default. Out of those respondents, only the following were declared by RTC in default: the Singkong Trading Co., Commissioner Mison, M/V Star Ace and Omega. Duraproof filed an ex parte Motion to present evidence against the defaulting respondents, which was granted.
Duraproof alleged that Vlason Enterprises, through constant intimidation and harassment in utilizing the PPA Management of La Union, caused Duraproof to incur heavy overhead expenses, causing irreparable damages of about P3 Million worth of ship tackles, rigs, and appurtenances including radar antennas and apparatuses, which were taken surreptitiously by persons working for Vlason Enterprises or its agents.
The RTC ruled that in favor of Duraproof and ordered Vlason to pay P3 Million worth of damages. Duraproof and the other companies entered into a compromise agreement, except Vlason. Duraproof moved for the execution of judgment. The Motion was granted and a Writ of Execution was issued.
Vlason Enterprises filed a Motion for Reconsideration addressed to Duraproof’s counsel, Atty. Concepcion, on the ground that it was allegedly not impleaded as a defendant, served summons or declared in default, and hence Duraproof may not present evidence against it in default. Duraproof opposed the Motion, arguing that it was a mere scrap of paper due to its defective notice of hearing.
RTC reversed its Decision, finding that there never was issued an order of default against Vlason Enterprises, so there could not have been any valid default-judgment rendered against it.
The CA ruled that there was no need to serve summons anew on Vlason Enterprises, since it had been served summons when the second amended petition was filed; and that Vlason Enterprisess Motion for Reconsideration was defective and void, because it contained no notice of hearing addressed to the counsel of Duraproof in violation of Rule 16, Section 4 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by Vlason was void for not containing a notice of hearing to Duraproof’s counsel
NO. The Motion contained a notice of hearing sent to Atty. Concepcion who had already died and had since been substituted by Duraproof’s new counsel, Atty. Desierto. Although Rule 15 of the Rules of Court requires Vlason Enterprises to address and to serve on the counsel of Duraproof the notice of hearing of the Motion for Reconsideration, the case at bar, however, is far from ideal. First, Vlason Enterprises was not validly summoned and it did not participate in the trial of the case in the lower court; thus, it was understandable that Vlason Enterprises would not be familiar with the parties and their counsels.
Second, Atty. Desierto entered his appearance only as collaborating counsel, who is normally not entitled to notices even from this Court. Third, Duraproof made no manifestation on record that Atty. Concepcion was already dead. Besides, it was Atty.
Concepcion who signed the Amended Petition, wherein Vlason Enterprises was first impleaded as respondent and served a copy thereof. Naturally, Vlason Enterprisess attention was focused on this pleading, and it was within its rights to assume that the signatory to such pleading was the counsel for Duraproof.
The Court has consistently held that a motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, which the clerk of court has no right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon. However, there are exceptions to the strict application of this rule. These exceptions include: “(1) where a rigid application will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice; especially if a party successfully shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals contained therein.”
The present case falls under such exception since Vlason Enterprises was not informed of any cause of action or claim against it.
All of a sudden, the vessels which Vlason Enterprises used in its salvaging business were levied upon and sold in execution to satisfy a supposed judgment against it. To allow this to happen simply because of a lapse in fulfilling the notice requirement which, as already said, was satisfactorily explained would be a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice.
Circumstances in the case at bar show that Duraproof was not denied procedural due process, and that the very purpose of a notice of hearing had been served. On the day of the hearing, Atty. Desierto did not object to the said Motion for
lack of notice to him; in fact, he was furnished in open court with a copy of the motion and was granted by the trial court thirty days to file his opposition to it. These circumstances clearly justify a departure from the literal application of the notice of hearing rule. In other cases, after the trial court learns that a motion lacks such notice, the prompt resetting of the hearing with due notice to all the parties is held to have cured the defect.
Proof of service
No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof. (Sec. 6, Rule 15) Hearing of motion
General rule: 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
Exception: Motions requiring immediate action. (Sec. 7, Rule 15)
MOTION TO DISMISS (RULE 16)