CONSOLIDATED REPORTS ON

LEGAL FORMS:
1. NOTICE OF HEARING
2. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
3. EXPLANATION UNDER RULE 13, SEC 11
4. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Submitted to:
Atty Ma. Jesusa Elanor Siquijor-Magbanua

Submitted by:
Dustin G Regalado
Micah B Quizzagan
Poll Anthony R Santillan
Christina M Rueda

Subject: Legal Forms (10AM – 12NN; Sunday)

Date: 9/29/2019
NOTICE OF HEARING
What is notice of hearing?
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due
process of law.
(Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Sample:

What rule is applicable in preparing a notice of hearing?

It is required by Rule 15 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.

Page 2 of 17
Section 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon
without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for
hearing by the applicant. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the
hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other
party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause
sets the hearing on shorter notice. (4a)
Who may file? When do you file?
Section 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon
without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for
hearing by the applicant. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the
hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other
party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause
sets the hearing on shorter notice. (4a)
 As a general rule, every written motion is deemed a litigated motion, i.e., one
which requires the parties to be heard before a ruling on the motion is made by
the court such as a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 and a motion for summary
judgment under Rule 35.
 Exception: an ex parte motion, on the contrary, is one which the court may
act upon without prejudicing the rights of the other party. (Riano, 2014)
What are the contents?
Section 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties
concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later
than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. (5a)
What are the effects of failure to file such notice?
Jurisprudence holds that this requirement of notice of hearing equally applies to a
motion for reconsideration. The requirement of notice is an integral component of
procedural due process that seeks to avoid surprises that may be sprung upon the
adverse party who must be given time to study and meet the motion before a resolution
by the court. A motion unaccompanied by a notice of hearing is considered a mere
scrap of paper that does not toll the running of the period to appeal.
(Guzman v. Guzman, 693 SCRA 328, 328-329, March 13, 2013)
Case:
Cruz vs. Coca Cola G.R. No. 165586
 We have long established that the twin requirements of notice and hearing
constitute the essential elements of due process, and neither of those elements
can be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutional guaranty. These
requisites cannot be replaced as they are not mere technicalities, but
Page 3 of 17
 requirements of due process to which every employee is entitled to ensure that
the employer’s prerogative to dismiss is not exercised arbitrarily.
 Pursuant to the case of Agabon v. NLRC, the prevailing doctrine is that where
the dismissal is for just cause, the lack of statutory due process does not nullify
the dismissal or render it illegal. The employer, however, should indemnify the
employee in the form of nominal damages to vindicate or recognize the
employee’s right that was violated. The amount of such damages is addressed to
the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.
In this case, the amount of P20,000.00 is sufficient for the purpose.

Page 4 of 17
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Affidavit of service (also known as proof of service) is an important document which
“contains the written admission of the party served, or the affidavit of the party serving,
containing the date, place, and manner of service”.
Modes of service
1. Personal Service
a. Written Admission of the party served;
b. Official Return of the server; or
c. Affidavit of the party serving, containing the date, place and manner of serving.
When Complete: Upon actual delivery.
2. Ordinary Mail
a. Affidavit of mailer showing compliance of Sec. 7, Rule 13.
b. Registry receipt issued by the mailing officer.
When Complete: Expiration of the ten day period after mailing, unless the court
otherwise provides.
3. Registered Mail
a. Affidavit; and
b. Registry receipt issued by the mailing office.
When Complete:
i. Upon actual receipt of the addressee; or
ii. After five days from the first notice of the postmaster
4. Substituted Service
If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers
cannot be made through personal service or by mail, the office and place of
residence of the party or his counsel being unknown, service may be made by
delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal
service and service by mail (Sec. 8, Rule 13)
When Complete: At the time of such delivery.

Page 5 of 17
Contents:

Page 6 of 17
Case:
Cruz v. CA
GR no. 123440, August 29, 2002
Facts:
Cruz was charged with the crime of estafa though falsification of public documents
before the RTC of Manila. Allegedly, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjucation of a
parcel of land when she knew that there were other surviving heirs. The offended party
did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action. Hence, it was tried together with
the criminal case.
Petitioner filed by registered mail a motion for reconsideration with the trial court which
was denied considering that there is nothing to show that the prosecution was actually
furnished of served with a copy of the same.
The RTC acquitted Cruz but on the civil aspect, it ordered the return of the parcel of
land to the surviving heirs. CA upheld the RTC decision.
Issue
Whether the court of appeals erred in not finding that the prosecution was duly
furnished with copy of the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration with respect to the
decision on the civil aspect
Held
The decision of the CA is affirmed. The petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory
requirements on proof of service insofar as the public prosecutor is concerned. The
Court has stressed time and again that non-compliance with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule
15 is a fatal defect. The well-settled rule is that a motion which fails to comply with
Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 is a useless piece of paper. If filed, such motion is not
entitled to judicial cognizance and does not stop the running of the reglementary period
for filing the requisite pleading.
If service is by registered mail, proof of service consists of the affidavit of the person
mailing and the registry receipt, both of which must be appended to the motion. Absent
one or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of service. In the instant case,
petitioner failed to attach both the affidavit and the registry receipt to the motion for
reconsideration as required by Sec. 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

Page 7 of 17
EXPLANATION UNDER RULE 13, SEC 11
Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. — Whenever practicable, the
service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with
respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be
accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally.
A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (emphasis
supplied)
Section 2. Filing and service, defined..
 Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court
 Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper
concerned. If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be
made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is
ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties, he shall
only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side.
Section 3. Manner of filing
 The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all
other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly
indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by
registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading
the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions,
pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post
office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the
date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached
to the record of the case.
Section 5. Modes of service
Service of pleadings motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall be
made either personally or by mail.
Section 6. Personal service
Service of the papers may be made by delivering personally a copy to the party or his
counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge
thereof. If no person is found in his office, or his office is not known, or he has no office,
then by leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the
evening, at the party's or counsel's residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age
and discretion then residing therein

Page 8 of 17
Section 7. Service by mail
Service by registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office in a
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known,
otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to
the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. If no
registry service is available in the locality of either the senders or the addressee, service
may be done by ordinary mail.
Section 8. Substituted service
If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be
made under the two preceding sections, the office and place of residence of the party or
his counsel being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of
court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is
complete at the time of such delivery.
Explanation in
Civil Case i.e.
Ejectment
Case

Page 9 of 17
 Explanation in
Criminal Case

Case:
Fulgencio vs. National Labor Relations Commission , G.R. No. 141600. September
12, 2003
Facts:
Fulgencio et.al obtained judgment in their favor in the complaint for illegal dismissal filed
against Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc. which was affirmed with finality by the Supreme
Court.
Raycor was directed to pay the Fulgencio et. al backwages from the time of dismissal
until reinstatement. However in the execution of judgment, Fulgencio filed a petition for

Page 10 of 17
certiorari with the Court of Appeals contending that NLRC modified the already final
and executory decision of the Supreme Court.
CA dismissed outright the petition for failure of the petitioners, among others, to include
in their petition the required explanation on why personal service upon the respondents
was not resorted to pursuant to Rule 13, Sec 11 of the Rules of Court.
Issue:
Whether or not non-compliance with Rule 13 Sec 11 of the rules of court warrants
outright dismissal?
Held:
No. Where a rigid application of the rules will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage
of justice, technicalities should be disregarded in order to resolve the case. Courts are
not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice,
courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that
on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the
other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather
than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a
particular case from its operation.
In this case, the Court finds compelling reasons to disregard the petitioners’ procedural
lapses in order to obviate a patent injustice. And to avert further delay, we have also
opted to resolve the petition on its merits rather than remand the case to the appellate
court, a remand not being necessary where, as in the instant case, the ends of justice
would not be subserved thereby and we are in a position to resolve the dispute based
on the records before us.
We are convinced beyond cavil that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of its discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the order of the Labor Arbiter, for
in so doing, the NLRC modified the decision of this Court in Raycor Aircontrol Systems,
Inc. v. NLRC.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY..Rule 13
SEC 11. x x x violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.

Page 11 of 17
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
What Rule do we prepare this form?
The entry of appearance of an attorney under section 21 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court is merely to enable the officers concerned to effectively serve processes on the
attorney of record.

Rule 138, Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. — an attorney is presumed to be

properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power
of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding
judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown,
require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the
authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the
name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice
requires. An attorneys wilfully appear in court for a person without being employed,
unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court
who has misbehaved in his official transactions.

The lack of such formal notice or entry of appearance does not render pleadings filed by
a new collaborating counsel to be of no legal effect.

Grounds/Contents/Who may and when to file

Contents
Caption and title:

Page 12 of 17
 Body (Name of counsel and
Address):

Signature and Address:

Who, when and where to file

As per Rule 138, Sec 21 ”an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to
represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required
to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion
of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney
who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under
which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the
person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires.”
Effects

Page 13 of 17
 1. Does the absence of a formal notice of entry of appearance invalidate the acts
performed by the counsel in his client’s name?
A lawyer is not required to present a written authorization from the client. The
absence of a formal notice of entry of appearance will not invalidate the acts
performed by the counsel in his client’s name. However, the court, on its own
initiative or on motion of the other party, may require a lawyer to adduce proof of
authorization from his client.

2. An attorneys wilfully appear in court for a person without being employed, unless
by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court
who has misbehaved in his official transactions.

Case:
SPOUSES SERAFIN AQUINO and RUMELIA AQUINO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF
APPEALS, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL., Respondents.
G.R. No. 109493. July 2, 1999.
FACTS:     A decision of the Regional Trial Court had become final and executory due
to the failure of the petitioners to file their appellants’ brief within the reglementary
period. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that it
was beyond the power of the court to modify the dismissal since the order dismissing
the appeal had become final and executory and an entry of judgment was already
issued.
The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred when it served copies of
resolutions upon their former counsel de parte, Atty. Barican, and not to the counsel of
recordm, Atty. Mala. Furthermore, the CA erred in not serving the resolution to the
petitioner despite knowledge of the death of their counsel of record.
ISSUE:   
Whether there was a valid substitution?
HELD:     
NO. Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that the proper procedure for the
withdrawal of a lawyer as counsel in a case. It provides:
Section 26 – Change of Attorneys – An attorney may retire at anytime from an action 
or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also
retire at anytime from an action or special proceeding, without consent of his client,
should the court,  on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he
ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly
employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and the
written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party x x x.”
Unless the procedure prescribed in the above mentioned section is complied with, the
attorney of record is regarded as the counsel who should be served with copies of the
Page 14 of 17
judgments, orders and pleadings and who should be held responsible for the case. In
case of substitution of attorneys the following requisites must be complied with: (1)
written application for substitution; (2) written consent of the client; and (3) a written
consent of the attorney to be substituted. In case the consent of the attorney to be
substituted cannot be obtained, there must at least be proof that notice of the motion for
substitution has been served upon him in the manner prescribed by our rules.
In the present case, petitioners admit that Atty. Barican represented them in the
proceedings before the lower court but that Atty. Mala substituted Atty. Barican when
the case was elevated to the court of Appeals. No proof was presented by the
petitioners to show compliance with the above procedural requirements for the
withdrawal of Atty. Barican and the substitution of Atty. Mala in his stead; no written
application for substitution or written consent of the client was filed in court. The
Certification made by Atty. Barican to the effect that he was the former counsel of
record of the petitioners but that he withdrew as their counsel is not controlling in the
absence of compliance with the above procedural requirements. It is therefore irrelevant
that Atty. Mala did not receive the copy of the resolution of the court of Appeals which
dismissed their appeal since he was not the counsel of record and had never entered
his appearance as counsel of the petitioners.

Sample Template:

Page 15 of 17
 (Template)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch 1
TULFO DELA CRUZ,
                                Plaintiff,
                                  CIVIL CASE No. 12345
                               -versus-                       FOR: Collection of Sum of
Money
RAYMART REYES,
                               Defendant.
x—————————————————-x

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
Metropolitan Trial Court
City of Manila – Branch 1

Please enter appearance of the undersigned as counsel for the defendant RAYMART
REYES, with his express conformity as indicated below, in this case. Henceforth, kindly
address all pertinent notices to the undersigned at the address given below.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

City of Manila, Philippines, September 25, 2012.

CRUZ AND TOLENTINO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 405 Elizabeth Center
Ermita, Manila

By:
Jean Pierre Guidotti
Roll No. 23456
IBP No. 22345/1-3-12/Manila
Page 16 of 17
PTR No. 33456/1-3-12/Manila

With conformity:

RAYMART REYES

Copy furnished:
          FRETTI LAUREL
          Counsel for the Plaintiff
          Unit 1234 Laurel Building
          Sampaloc, Manila

Page 17 of 17