SOLAR TEAM ENTERTERTAINMENT INC. vs.

RICAFORT
(G.R No. 132007)

FACTS:
Solar Team Entertainment filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with
prayer for a writ of replevin against private respondents Team Image Entertainment, Felix S. Co,
Jeffrey C. Cal, and King Cusia. Private respondents filed their answer and furnished the
petitioners counsel a copy by registered mail without any written explanation as to why service
was not made personally upon petitioner-plaintiff, as required by Section 11 of Rule 13 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.. The case was presided over by public respondent Judge Helen
Bautista-Ricafort.
(Petitioners Claims)
The petitioner filed a motion to expunge the Answer (with Counterclaims) and to declare
herein private respondents in default, alleging therein that the latter did not observe the mandate
of the aforementioned Section 11, and that there was no valid reason as to why defendants
counsel should not have served personally a copy of their answer to the petitioners counsel,
stating that their office is just a stone away and with an estimate distance of about 200 meters
more or less. It was also stated that the post office was ten times farther than the office of
petitioners counsel.

Respondents Claims
Public Respondent Judge denies petitioners motion to expunge the Answer and to
declare the private respondents in default by reason that:
Under Section 11 of Rule 13 it is within the discretion of the trial court whether to
consider the pleading as filed or not.
Section 6 of Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure ordains that the Rules shall be
liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
Also, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Alonso vs. Villamor, it is well settled that
litigations should, as much as possible be decided on their merits and not on technicalities.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioners motion to expunge private respondents answer
with counterclaims on the ground that said pleading was not served personally.

RULING:
NO
 It may be true that private respondents counsel violated Section 11 of Rule 13 and the
motion to expunge was prima facie meritorious, however, the grant or denial of said motion
nevertheless remained within the sound exercise of the trial courts discretion. The trial court
opted to exercise its discretion in favor of admitting the Answer (with Counterclaims), instead of
expunging it from the record as guided by Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, which ordains that the Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding, as
well as by the dictum laid down in Alonso v. Villamor.
The court also took this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other
modes of service and filing, is the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is
practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is
mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be
had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or
filing was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court
shall likewise consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved
therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section
11.
Also, the court stated that for the guidance of the Bench and Bar, strictest compliance
with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated one month from promulgation of this Decision.

IGMEDIO AZAJAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
This case originated from a complaint filed by Igmedio Azajar against respondent Cham Samco
and Sons, Inc. in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Camarines Sur.
Azajar's claiming, that he had purchased from Cham Samco, thru the latter's agent, and had given
to the agent P18, 000.00 in full 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 2. That venue was improperly laid. The motion to dismiss was accompanied by a
notice that rise the controversy at bar.
The motion to dismiss contained a notice addressed to the Clerk of Court reading as follows:

The Clerk of Court

Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur
Naga City

Sir:

Please submit the foregoing motion to the Court for its consideration and resolution immediately upon receipt
thereof.

Makati, Rizal for Naga City, February 4, 1974

(SGD) POLO S.
PANTALEON

Copy furnished:

Atty. Augusta A. Pardalias

Naga City

NF-9274
The motion was dismissed by trial court by reason that:
1. "Motion to Dismiss" which, in legal contemplation, is not a motion at all because the
Notice" therein is directed to the Clerk of Court instead of to the party concerned (as required
by Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court)
2. Without the notice of time and place of hearing.
Cham Samco filed for Motion for New Trial stating that there are available defenses which if
duly alleged and proven, would absolve him from any liability. This motion was denied.
Cham Samco Cham went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari asserting that the trial court acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in declaring it in default and then
rendering judgment by default. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit by the Court of
Appeals.
Cham Sanco Again filed a motion for reconsideration; the Court of Appeals reversed its first
decision and grants the Motion for Reconsideration.
The Court helds that:
1. The notice in the motion which was addressed to the clerk of court asking him to submit
the motion for the consideration of the court is a substantial compliance with the provision of
section 3 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
2. The trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion for new
trial not only on the ground of excusable negligence but also on the ground that it has a
meritorious defense.
3. Damages were awarded to Cham Sanco.
The Court concluded its opinion with the observation 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.
However, it did not erase movant's duty to give notice to the adverse party of the date and time
of the hearing on its motion (3) 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
purpose of said notice being, is to give time to the petitioner to oppose and 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not decision of the Court of Appeals are wrong in setting aside the judgment by
default rendered against private respondent by the Court of First Instance, and directing that said
respondent be allowed to file its answer to the complaint.
RULING:
NO
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals stating 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 the 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.
The Supreme Court agree with the CA 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.

Neri v. De La Pea
A.M. No.RTJ-05-1896; April 29, 2005

FACTS:
The case stems from a motion for reconsideration from a civil case of damages filed by
one Aznar, the plaintiff in the original case, against Citibank (which was represented by
complainant as counsel). The motion for reconsideration was re-raffled to the sala of Respondent
Judge De La Pea. Judge De La Pea granted the motion for reconsideration which prompted the
filing of Atty. Neri of the administrative case now in dispute, charging Respondent Judge of
dishonesty and gross ignorance of the law. Respondent Judge, in his defense, contended that he
based his decision from an ex parte manifestation made by Aznar. Petitioner assailed the
Respondents appreciation of the ex parte manifestation as Citibank was not served a copy of
such.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Respondent Judge liable for
violating for violating Section 4, Rule 13 which requires that adverse parties be served copies of
all pleadings and similar papers; in relation to Section 5, Rule 15 which requires a movant to set
his motion for hearing, unless it is one of those which a court can act upon without prejudicing
the rights of the other party; both provisions of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
According to the OCA, the fact that plaintiff Aznar had failed to serve a copy of his ex
parte manifestation upon Citibank should have been reason enough for respondent to disregard
the same. The OCA found Respondent only liable for simple misconduct.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Judge is liable for violating the aforesaid provisions of the
Rules of Civil Procedure.

RULING:
No
Respondent Judge did not violate the stated provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The
prevailing doctrine in our jurisdiction is that a motion without a notice of hearing addressed to
the parties is a mere scrap of paper. However, the same cannot be said for manifestations which,
unless otherwise indicated, are usually made merely for the information of the court.

Nevertheless, Judge must still be found guilty for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, for
having based his decision on an ex parte manifestation while Citibank was never made aware of
such. Said action violates the principle of fair play, proof that there is something amiss
Respondent Judges sense of fairness and righteousness