Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JEHAN SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 217456 2015-11-24	MARILOU S. LAUDE v. ROLINE M. GINEZ-JABALDE LEONEN, J.
As an integral component of procedural due process, the three-day notice required by the Rules is not intended for the benefit of the movant. Rather, the requirement is for the purpose of avoiding surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party, who must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the court. Principles of natural justice demand that the right of a party should not be affected without giving it an opportunity to be heard.[112] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
	GR No. 201601 2014-03-12	MARYLOU CABRERA v. FELIX NG REYES, J.
The general rule is that the three-day notice requirement in motions under Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court is mandatory. It is an integral component of procedural due process.[17] "The purpose of the three-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."[18]
	GR No. 172588 2013-03-18	ISABEL N. GUZMAN v. ANIANO N. GUZMAN BRION, J.
The RTC did not also commit a grave abuse of discretion in strictly enforcing the requirement of notice of hearing. The requirement of notice of hearing is an integral component of procedural due process that seeks to avoid "surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party, who must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the court."[38] Given the purpose of the requirement, a motion unaccompanied by a notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the running of the period to appeal. This requirement of notice of hearing equally applies to the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.[39] The petitioner's alleged absence of counsel is not a valid excuse or reason for non-compliance with the rules.
	GR No. 171872 2010-06-28	FAUSTO R. PREYSLER v. MANILA SOUTHCOAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
Likewise, in Jehan Shipping Corporation v. National Food Authority,[14] the Court held that despite the lack of notice of hearing in a Motion for Reconsideration, there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process where the adverse party actually had the opportunity to be heard and had filed pleadings in opposition to the motion. The Court held: This Court has indeed held time and again, that under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, mandatory is the requirement in a motion, which is rendered defective by failure to comply with the requirement. 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.
	GR NO. 167471 2007-02-05	GLICERIA SARMIENTO v. EMERITA ZARATAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The test is the presence of the opportunity to be heard, as well as to have time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon which it is based.[23] Considering the circumstances of the present case, we believe that procedural due process was substantially complied with.