Igmedio Azajar vs. Court Of Appeals And Cham Samco & Sons, Inc. G.R. No. L-40945 (1986)

FACTS:

This case originated from a complaint filed by petitioner Igmedio Azajar against respondent Cham Samco and Sons, Inc. in the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur. Azajar's claim is that he had purchased from defendant Cham Samco nails of various sizesand had given P18,000.00 as payment thereof; but in breach of contract, Cham Samco had offered to deliver only a part of the quantity ordered.

Cham Samco filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) failure of the complaint to state a cause of action-the complaint's language indicating not a perfected sale but merely an "offer to buy by plaintiff that was partly accepted by defendant," and failing to show that as explicitly required by the order form prices had been confirmed by Cham Samco's "Manila Office," and (2) that venue was improperly laid-Cham Samco's invariable conditions in transactions of this nature, as Azajar well knew from many such transactions in the past, being that "any legal action thereon must be instituted in the City of Manila.

Contending that such a notice was fatally defective and rendered the Motion to Dismiss incapable of to the period to answer, Azajar filed a motion dated February 20, 1974 to declare Cham Samco in default, which the Court granted. By Order dated February 22, 1974 the Court pronounced Cham Samco in default and allowed Azajar to present evidence ex parte.

Then on March 30, 1974, the Trial Court rendered judgment by default against defendant Cham Samco.

The Court of Appeals set aside the judgment by default rendered against Cham Samco by the Regional Trial Court, and directed that Cham Samco be allowed to file its answer to the complaint and after joinder of issues, trial be had and judgment rendered on the merits.

Cham Samco quite frankly admits its error. It pleads however that under the circumstances the error be not regarded as irremediable or that it be deemed as constituting excusable negligence, warranting relief. It argues that legal and logical considerations, which it took to be tenable, caused it to theorize that a hearing on the motion was dispensable.

ISSUE: Whether or not it is necessary that the motion to dismiss be set for hearing?

RULING: Yes, the uniform holding of this Court has been that a failure to comply with the hearing requirement is a fatal flaw.  However, in this case, the Court brushes aside technicality and affords the petitioner its day in court so that the ends of justice would be better served.

It was wrong, of course, for Cham Samco to have failed to set its motion to dismiss for hearing on a specified date and time. The law explicitly requires that notice of a motion shall be served by the appellant to all parties concerned at least three days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers accompanying it; and that the notice shag be directed to the parties concerned, stating the time and place for the hearing of the motion. The uniform holding of this Court has been that a failure to comply with the requirement is a fatal flaw. Such notice is required to avoid surprises upon the opposite party and give the latter time to study and meet the arguments of the motion, as well as to determine or make determinable the time of submission of the motion for resolution.

The purpose of said notice being not only to give the latter time to oppose the motion if so minded, but also to determine the time of its submission for resolution. Without such notice, the occasion would not arise to determine with reasonable certitude whether and within what time the adverse party would respond to the motion, and when the motion might already be resolved by the Court. The duty to give that notice is imposed on the movant, not on the Court.

Withal the reasons for Cham Samco's erroneous notion of the dispensability of a hearing on its motion to dismiss are not utterly without plausibility. This circumstance, taken together with the fact, found by the Intermediate Appellate Court and not disputed by petitioner Azajar, that Cham Samco has meritorious defenses which if proven would defeat Azajar's claim against it, and the eminent desirability more than once stressed by this Court that cases should be determined on the merits after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections, all conduce to concurrence with the Court of Appeals that "the ends of justice would be better served in this case if we brush aside technicality and afford the petitioner its day in court.