KKK FOUNDATION vs BARGAS

G.R. No. 163785, December 27, 2007

FACTS:
The petitioner KKK Foundation, Inc. filed a complaint
for Annulment of Extra-judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgage and/or Nullification of Sheriffs Auction Sale and
Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order and writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioner alleged that: (1) the auction sale was made with
fraud and/or bad faith since there was no public bidding; (2)
the sheriff did not post the requisite Notice of Sheriffs Sale;
(3) the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure was fatally
defective since it sought to foreclose properties of two
different entities; (4) the foreclosed properties were
awarded and sold to Imelda A. Angeles for an inadequate
bid of only P4,181,450; and (5) the auction sale involved
eight parcels of land covered by individual titles but the
same were sold en masse. Judge Adelina Calderon-Bargas
issued a temporary restraining order preventing Angeles
from consolidating her ownership to the foreclosed
properties. On even date, petitioner and Angeles executed a
Compromise Agreement wherein petitioner agreed to pay
Angeles the bid price of the eight parcels of land within 20
days.
The parties then filed a Motion to Approve Compromise
Agreement. Petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to
Recall Compromise Agreement. It was denied on the ground
that it failed to comply with sec 4 and 5 of rules in civil
procedures. The RTC approved the compromise agreement.
Angeles moved for writ of execution.
It was granted. Petitioner filed motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner appealed on the ground that the
judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess jurisdiction. The CA ruled in favor of the
respondent.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in in granting the Motion
for Issuance of Writ of Execution although it lacked the
requisite notice of hearing.
RULING:
No. Anent the second issue, we have consistently held
that a motion which does not meet the requirements of
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15of 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. Service of a copy of a motion
containing a notice of the time and the place of hearing of
that motion is a mandatory requirement, and the failure of
movants to comply with these requirements renders their
motions fatally defective. However, there are exceptions to
the strict application of this rule. These exceptions are: (1)
where a rigid application will result in a manifest failure or
miscarriage of justice especially if a party successfully shows
that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory
judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals
contained therein; (2) where the interest of substantial
justice will be served; (3) where the resolution of the motion
is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of
the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is
not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in
not complying with the procedure prescribed. A notice of
hearing is an integral component of procedural due process
to afford the adverse parties a chance to be heard before a
motion is resolved by the court. Through such notice, the
adverse party is given time to study and answer the
arguments in the motion. Records show that while Angeless
Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution contained a notice
of hearing, it did not particularly state the date and time of
the hearing. However, we still find that petitioner was not
denied procedural due process. Upon receiving the Motion
for Issuance of Writ of Execution, the trial court issued an
Order dated September 9, 2002 giving petitioner ten (10)
days to file its comment. The trial court ruled on the motion
only after the reglementary period to file comment lapsed.
Clearly, petitioner was given time to study and comment on
the motion for which reason, the very purpose of a notice of
hearing had been achieved. The notice requirement is not a
ritual to be followed blindly. Procedural due process is not
based solely on a mechanical and literal application that
renders any deviation inexorably fatal. Instead, procedural
rules are liberally construed to promote their objective and
to assist in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of any action and proceeding.