This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The foregoing requirements — that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion — are mandatory, and if not religiously complied with, the motion becomes pro forma.[20] A motion that does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon.[21] The logic for such 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.[22] 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.[23] In keeping with the principles of due process, therefore, a motion which does not afford the adverse party a chance to oppose should simply be disregarded.[24] Principles of natural justice demand that a right of a party should not be affected without giving it an opportunity to be heard.[25] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The explanation proffered by the Spouses Garcia, that the City Assessor merely committed an error when it declared the property for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI, appears to be suspect in the absence of any prompt and serious effort on their part to have it rectified before the onset of the instant controversy. The correction of entry belatedly sought by the Spouses Garcia is indicative of its intention to put the property beyond the reach of the judgment creditor. Every prevailing party to a suit enjoys the corollary right to the fruits of the judgment and, thus, court rules provide a procedure to ensure that every favorable judgment is fully satisfied.[27] It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit. Hailing it as the "life of the law," ratio legis est anima,[28] this Court has zealously guarded against any attempt to thwart the rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to savour the fruit of his victory.[29] A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty triumph for the prevailing party.[30] | |||||