Omico v.

Vallejos

Facts:

- While petitioner's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by then CFI Judge Catolico was pending
resolution by the trial court, the latter filed a petition to declare petitioners in default alleging that
seven months had lapsed since summons was served on petitioners and that petitioners' motion
was a "useless piece of paper" as the notice of hearing was fatally defective because it was
addressed to the clerk of court.
- The court granted the petition, received ex parte the evidence of Catolico, rendered judgment
thereon against petitioners, and on motion of Catolico, directed the issuance of a writ of
execution.
- Petitioners filed their notice of appeal to the Supreme Court after their motion for reconsideration
was denied; but, because of the impending execution of the judgment by default, they filed the
instant petition assailing the order of default, the reception of evidence ex parte, and the judgment
by default as having been made with grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:

- Whether or not it was proper for the court to dismiss the motion on the ground that it was fatally
defective

Held:

- The Supreme Court ruled that the notice of hearing addresses to the clerk of court stating the
time and place of hearing with a notation that a copy thereof has been sent through registered
mail to Catolico's counsel, who, as per certification of the post office, actually received the notice
one day before the day set for the hearing of the motion, was not defective
- To Our mind, what is decisive here is that plaintiff had sufficient notice of the time and place of the
hearing of the motion to dismiss. We have said in Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Bath
Construction and Company, "unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing the court
would have no way to determine whether that party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he
objects, to hear him on his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within
which he may file his reply or opposition."
- In the Matusa case, SC said that granting that the notice is defective for failure to specify the
exact date when the motion to dismiss should be heard, the Court, in taking cognizance of the
motion on the date set for the hearing thereof, cured whatever iota of defect such a pleading may
have had, especially if it is taken into account that upon receipt of the motion to dismiss, plaintiff
was properly notified of the existence of said pleading.
- SC declared that there may be cases where the attendance of certain circumstances "may be
considered substantive enough to truncate the adverse literal application of the pertinent rules
violated." The case at bar is such an instance, because private respondent had sufficient notice of
the place, time and date when the motion to dismiss was to be heard.
- It is, therefore, evident from the foregoing that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion when he declared the petitioners in default.
- because petitioners were incorrectly declared in default while their motion to dismiss was still
pending resolution, the holding of the trial of the case on the merits, in their absence, without
notice to them of the date of the hearing, was a denial of due process.
- Reiterating a previous ruling, the Court further ruled that even if an appeal is open to petitioners,
certiorari is allowed where the appeal is no longer an adequate and speedy remedy as the trial
court had already ordered the issuance of a writ of execution.