This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-11-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Section 4 lays the general rule that all written motions shall be set for hearing by the movant, except the non-litigated motions or those which may be acted upon by the court without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. These ex parte motions include a motion for extension of time to file pleadings,[3] motion for extension of time to file an answer,[4] and a motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal.[5] In Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Bath Construction and Company,[6] we ruled that a notice of time and place of hearing is mandatory for motions for new trial or motion for reconsideration, as in this case. We have reiterated this doctrine in Magno v. Ortiz,[7] Calero v. Yaptichay,[8] Vda. de Azarias v. Maddela,[9] Phil. Advertising Counselors, Inc. v. Revilla,[10] Sacdalan v. Bautista,[11] New Japan Motors, Inc. v. Perucho,[12] Firme v. Reyes, et al.,[13] and others. More recently, in National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia v. Court of Appeals,[14] we reaffirmed the rule that the requirement of notice under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 is mandatory and the lack thereof is fatal to a motion for reconsideration. | |||||