Saint Louis University vs. Olairez G.R. No. 162299 and G.R. No.

174758
March 26, 2014

Facts:
The respondents are 4th year graduating medical students of the petitioner who sought for
the prevention of the implementation of the revised version of the Comprehensive Oral and
Written Examination (COWE), a prerequisite for graduation from SLUs medicine course. The
RTC rendered decision in favor of the respondents. On July 17,2003, the respondent went to the
SLU and insisted on immediate compliance the RTC decision.Unable to get a favorable reply
from SLU, the respondents filed, on the same day, a "Very Urgent Motion to Cite Defendants in
Contempt" setting the hearing of the motion for July 18, 2003. The RTC found SLU guilty of
indiect contempt. SLU appeal the decision and the CA reversed the decision stating it violates the
due process of law when the petitioner was deprive of opportunity to explain his side due to
failure of the respondent to observe the three-day notice rule on hearing of motions.

Issue: Whether the respondents violate the threes-day notice rule on hearing of motions?

Ruling:
Yes. Under the Rules of Court Rule 15 Section 4 xxx Every written motion required to
be heard and the notice of hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its
receipt by the other party at least three(3) days before the date of hearing unless the court for
good cause sets hearing on shorter notice. In this case the respondents scheduled the hearing on
their "Very Urgent Motion to Cite Defendants In Contempt" on July 18, 2003 or just one day
after they filed the said pleading on July 17, 2003. As a rule, any motion that does not comply
with the requirements of Rule 15 should not be received for filing and, if filed, is not entitled to
judicial cognizance, subject only to some exceptions, such as where a rigid application of the rule
will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice or if there was substantial compliance.
Resurreccion vs. People G.R. No 192866
July 9, 2014

Facts:
The petitioner is convicted of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and
was also convicted of malversation of public funds as defined under Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) of the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which
read as follows : xxx submit the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration of Decision for the
immediate consideration and approval by this Honorable Division as soon as receipt is made
hereof. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion

Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on
the ground that the motion did not contain a notice of hearing?

Ruling:
Yes. Under the Rules of Court the motion must meet the requirements of section 4 and 5
of Rule 15 for the hearing of motion which states that every written motion must heard and
notice of hearing must be served to the other party three days before the date of hearing and
specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing
of the motion.

In this case the notification prays only for the submission of the motion for reconsideration and
approval of the court, without stating the time, date and place of the hearing of the motion. It
was, therefore, not the notice of hearing contemplated by the rules as the same has not been set
for hearing.
Republic vs. Diaz-Enriquez G.R. No. 181458

March 20, 2013

Facts:

The Republic was represented by the PCCG counsel (Falcon) and OSG (Puertollano) that
handles two cases wherein each one of them was assigned against the respondents. The contract
between the PCCG and Falcon has been terminated that leads to the failure of the Republic to
attend the hearing. The case was dismissed with prejudice. The Republic filed a motion for
reconsideration with a notice for hearing on 7 December 2007. This motion was served on the
Sandiganbayan and respondents on 29 November 2007 via registered mail. Unfortunately, the
court received the motion only on 10 December 2007. The Sandiganbayan issued its 25 January
2008 Resolution denying it on the ground of failure to observe the three-day notice requirement.
In effect, it considered the motion as a worthless piece of paper.

Issue: Whether the petitioner failed to comply with the three-day notice rule?

Ruling:

No. The Sandiganbayan is incorrect. Undet Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, the
moving party is required to serve motions in such a manner as to ensure the receipt thereof by the
other party at least three days before the date of hearing. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a
surprise and to afford the adverse party a chance to be heard before the motion is resolved by the
trial court. Plainly, the rule does not require that the court receive the notice three days prior to
the hearing date. Petitioner mailed the motion to the Sandiganbayan on 29 November 2007.
Since Rule 13, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, states that the date of the mailing of motions
through registered mail shall be considered the date of their filing in court, it follows that
petitioner filed the motion to the court 10 days in advance of the hearing date. In so doing, it
observed the 10-day requirement under Rule 15, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, which provides
that the time and date of the hearing must not be later than ten days after the filing of the motion.

The Motion for Reconsideration containing a timely notice of hearing was duly served in
compliance with Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court, the fact that the Sandiganbayan
received the notice on 10 December 2007 becomes trivial. The court cannot also blame petitioner
for this belated receipt of the registered mail since it followed the rules.