Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FAUSTO R. PREYSLER v. MANILA SOUTHCOAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 174411 2014-07-02	CITY OF DAGUPAN v. ESTER F. MARAMBA LEONEN, J.
Jehan was quoted with approval in Preysler, Jr. v. Manila Southcoast Development Corporation.[61] In Preysler, this court ruled that "a liberal construction of the procedural rules is proper where the lapse in the literal observance of a rule of procedure has not prejudiced the adverse party and has not deprived the court of its authority."[62]
	GR No. 201601 2014-03-12	MARYLOU CABRERA v. FELIX NG REYES, J.
Nevertheless, the three-day notice requirement is not a hard and fast rule. When the adverse party had been afforded the opportunity to be heard, and has been indeed heard through the pleadings filed in opposition to the motion, the purpose behind the three-day notice requirement is deemed realized. In such case, the requirements of procedural due process are substantially complied with. Thus, in Preysler, Jr. v. Manila Southcoast Development Corporation,[21] the Court ruled that: The three-day notice rule is not absolute. A liberal construction of the procedural rules is proper where the lapse in the literal observance of a rule of procedure has not prejudiced the adverse party and has not deprived the court of its authority. Indeed, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the Rules should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and courts must avoid their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice.
	GR No. 181354 2013-02-27	SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
This Court has indeed held, time and again, that under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, the requirement is mandatory. Failure to comply with the requirement renders the motion defective. "As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading."[24]
	GR No. 192984 2012-02-28	ROLANDO D. LAYUG v. COMELEC PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It should likewise be pointed out that the aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration was filed without the requisite notice of hearing. We have held time and again that the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements under Sections 4[38] and 5[39] of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court renders the motion defective. As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma.[40] None of the acceptable exceptions obtain in this case.
	GR No. 171750 2012-01-25	UNITED PULP v. ACROPOLIS CENTRAL GUARANTY CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
The law is clear that it intends for the other party to receive a copy of the written motion at least three days before the date set for its hearing. The purpose of the three (3)-day notice requirement, which was established not for the benefit of the movant but rather for the adverse party, is to avoid surprises upon the latter and to grant it sufficient time to study the motion and to enable it to meet the arguments interposed therein.[47] In Preysler, Jr. v. Manila Southcoast Development Corporation,[48] the Court restated the ruling that "the date of the hearing should be at least three days after receipt of the notice of hearing by the other parties."