This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-08-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Yet, again, there were previous cases with peculiar circumstances that had compelled us to liberally apply the rules on notice of hearing and recognize substantial compliance with the same. Once such case is Philippine National Bank v. Paneda,[45] where we adjudged: Thus, even if the Motion may be defective for failure to address the notice of hearing of said motion to the parties concerned, the defect was cured by the court's taking cognizance thereof and the fact that the adverse party was otherwise notified of the existence of said pleading. There is substantial compliance with the foregoing rules if a copy of the said motion for reconsideration was furnished to the counsel of herein private respondents. | |||||