1. Fajardo v CA
A motion without notice
Facts: Respondent Bugaring filed for
collection of attorney’s fees with RTC-
QC against Fajardo. He alleged that
having represented her in various cases
and despite demands, Fajardo refused
to pay legal service fees and other
expenses or costs. After presentation of
evidence ex parte, RTC ordered Fajardo
to pay P3.5M for attorney’s fees
covering civil cases plus interests.
On December 10, 1997 respondent filed
for correction of judgment. On February
3, 1998, petitioner alleged she has
received the decision only on January
19 and filed a notice of appeal which
was denied because of the pending
motion for correction of judgment. In its
revised decision, RTC ordered
respondent to pay Bugaring attorney’s
fees covering the legal cases which the
latter handled in her favor.
Subsequently, a writ of execution was
issued.
Petitioner appealed to CA to annul the
orders and resolution issued by the
RTC. She argued that TC erred when it
denied her notice to appeal because of
the pendency of correction of judgment
because she was not furnished a copy
of it. CA denied her appeal; affirmed
RTC’s decision that her notice to appeal
has been filed PREMATURELY due to
the pendency of correction of judgment.
ISSUE: Whether the motion to correct
judgment was defective.
RULING: YES.
of hearing is pro forma, a mere scrap of
paper.
Section 4 and 5 of Rule 15 provide that
every written motion be set for hearing
by the movant, except those motions
which the court may act upon without
prejudicing the rights of the adverse
party and the notice of hearing must be
addressed to all parties and must
specify the time and date of the hearing.
ITC, the motion for correction of
judgment was defective as it lacks the
required proper notice of hearing. It
failed to specify the date and time of
hearing on the motion. All these were
not controverted by Bugaring.
2. PHILBANKING v CA
Facts: Marcos filed with the RTC
collection suit with damages against
BANK. He alleged that sometime in
1982, he was convinced by the bank
official who was also his close friend to
make time deposits earning at 17% per
annum and maturing after 90 days, on
two occasions. He was issued an OR on
the first time depo while the second time
depo he was issued only with a letter-
certification acknowledging said deposit.
IN March 1983, instead of withdrawing
his deposits and their interests he was
persuaded by his friend Pagsaligan this
time to open several letters of credit SO
he signed blank printed forms for letters
of credit, trust receipts agreements, and
PN. Later on, Marcos accused the
BANK of unjustly demanding payment of
his debt and unlawful charging of
interest. He claimed before the RTC to
annul PN and to order the bank to pay
him his time deposits with interests.
For belatedly filing its answer, the Bank
was declared in default which was later
lifted. The BANK refuted the allegations,
that Marcos freely entered into TRA and
that the instant case is only an attempt
to escape his criminal liability under
Trust Receipt Agreement. On March 5,
1990, it filed a motion to cross-examine
Marcos which was denied because
there was no proof of service to Marcos.
Later, the TC decided in favor of
Marcos. CA modified the decision as to
the amount of damages. As to the
motion to cross-examine, it ruled that
the right is fundamental and the BANK
did not waive such right. The motion is
one of the non-litigated motions that do
not require notice of hearing to the other
party.
ISSUE: Whether right to due process
was violated when motion to cross-
examine was denied.
RULING: No.
A MOTION to examine is adversarial.
The adverse party has the right not only
to prepare a meaningful opposition to
the motion but also to be informed that
his witness is being recalled for cross-
examination, therefore, proof of service
is indispensable.
ITC, the TC was correct in denying the
motion.
**The lifting of the order of default does
not follow that the restoration of the right
to cross-examine. While the right to
cross-examine is a vital element of
procedural due process, the right does
not necessarily require an actual cross-
examination, but merely an opportunity
to exercise this right if desired by the
party entitled to it. When the Bank was
previously held in default, it lost its right
and even thereafter, failed to exhaust
the remedies to secure the exercise of
such right at the earliest.
3 MONTEMAYOR V BERMEJO
FACTS:
The case stemmed from an unlawful
detainer case filed by Montemayor
which was decided by Judge Bermejo.
In said case, judgement was rendered in
favor of Montemayor. On December 12,
2000, Montemayor filed his first Motion
for Execution and set hearing on
December 16, 2000. However, the
motion was not included since the date
was not a Motion day.
He filed his second Motion for Execution
dated December 26, 2000 and set
hearing on January 3, 2000.
Montemayor also filed a Motion to
Require Defendants’ Counsel to Inform
the Court the Date He Received a Copy
of the Judgement. Judge Bermejo
however did not act on both motions. It
was Judge Bermejo’s contention that
since the respondents had already filed
an appeal and posted a supersedeas
bond, the Motion for Execution could not
be acted upon.
On January 21, 2003 Judge Bermejo
then issued an order giving due course
to defendants’ appeal and required them
to post a supersedeas bond. On
Febuary 24, 2003, Montemayor then
filed his second Motion to Require
Defendants’ Counsel to Inform the Court
the Date He Received a Copy of the
Judgement and third Motion for
Execution. Judge Bermejo also granted
a motion for extension in favor of
respondents to which the latter may post
its supersedeas bond on May 12, 2003.
Montemayor now files the present
administrative case against Judge
Bermejo for his failure to act upon the
three Motions for Execution and 2
Motions to Request Defendants’
Counsel to Inform the Court He
Received a Copy of Judgement. OCA
resolved to impose 5000 peso fine.
ISSUE: Did Judge Bermejo commit
unethical practice?
RULING:
Yes. The Rules of Court require that all
motions shall be scheduled on a hearing
day which is on Friday afternoons or if
Friday is a non-working holiday, in the
afternoon of the next working day,
except for motions requiring immediate
action.
Judge Bermejo should have taken into
account that the Rules of Court provide
if judgement is rendered against the
defendant in an ejectment suit,
execution shall issue immediately upon
motion. Therefore, there was no need to
schedule the Motions for Execution.
However, even if the Judge did not
share this view, he could have
scheduled Petitioner’s motion on the
next working day.
4 FAVIS V GONZALES
FACTS:
Dr. Favis, the deceased, died intestate.
His first marriage with Capitolina bore
seven (7) children whom are the
petitioners herein. When Capitolina
died, he married Juana, and begot a son
name Mariano, the respondent in this
case. Dr. Favis left behind several
properties, during his bedridden stage,
he allegedly executed a Deed of
Donation in favor of respondents.
Petitioners claiming that the donation
prejudiced their legitime, they filed with
the RTC an an action to annul said
donation.
The RTC granted petitioners’ petition
and declared the Deed of Donation as
null and void considering that when Dr.
Favis executed the donation, he was
aged 92 and plagued with illnesses.
Therefore, he could not have full control
of his faculties.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals,
challenged the trial court’s nullification.
The Court of Appeals motu proprio
ordered the dismissal of the complaint
for failure to alleged earnest efforts
toward a compromise have been
complied with.
Petitioners now question the propriety of
the dismissal.
ISSUE: May the Court dismiss motu
proprio a case on the ground of failure
to aver that a condition precedent has
not been complied with?

RULING:

No. Under the Omnibus Motion Rule, all

objections and defenses not raised in a
motion to dismiss or in an aswer are
deemed waived, except for the following
grounds: (1) Lack of jurisdiction; (2) litis
pendentia; (3) res judicata; and (4)
prescription.

In the instant case, no motion to dismiss

was filed based on the failure to comply
with condition precedent; such failure
was never assigned as error in the
Court of Appeals. It was erroneous then
for the Court of Appeals to have motu
proprio dismissed the appeal of
petitioners based on the Omnibus
Motion Rule where none of the following
exceptions are present.