Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

VETTE INDUSTRIAL SALES

v.
SUI SOAN S. CHENG et al.
FACTS:
A complaint for specific performance was filed by Cheng
Sui Soan against Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc., et al.
based on unpaid obligations arising from his transfer of his
interest in the stocks of Vette Industrial. Vette, et al. filed
their answer, and after the issues were joined, Sui filed a
Motion to Set Pretrial. Vette, et al. received the motion, but
did not attend, since there was no notice from the trial court
setting the pre-trial date. A pre-trial hearing was
subsequently set for January 15, 2004, but was postponed
and moved to May 21, 2004. Sui and his counsel, however,
on the date of the pre-trial failed to appear, and the trial
court ordered the dismissal of the case. Atty. Ferrer, Suis
counsel, filed a Manifestation and Motion for
Reconsideration, which was granted, explaining that he
arrived late since he came from South Cotabato, as he
served in the Provincial Board of Canvassers. Vette, et al.
opposed said motion, asserting that Sui did not comply with
the three-day notice rule which is mandatory under the
Rules of Court, and that Sui failed to submit proof of receipt
by Vette, et al. of the manifestation and motion. FACTS:
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the trial court erred in not dismissing
the case
RULING:
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. When the
trial court received Suis Manifestation and Motion for
Reconsideration, it did not immediately resolve the motion,
but allowed petitioners to file their comment and also leave
to file a rejoinder if Sui files a reply. These circumstances
justify a departure from the literal application of the rule
because petitioners were given the opportunity to study and
answer the arguments in the motion. It is the policy of the
Court to afford party-litigants the amplest opportunity to
enable them to have their cases justly determined, free from
the constraints of technicalities.
It should be remembered that rules of procedure are
but tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice,
such that when rigid application of the rules tend to frustrate
rather than promote substantial justice, this Court is
empowered to suspend their operation.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen