Scribd
Upload
275 views1 page

VILLACERAN, Kent-Kent R. Section JD-E CIVPRO

A collision occurred between Victory Liner Inc. and Malinias, leading Malinias to seek damages. When Victory Liner failed to appear during trial, Malinias was declared the winner by default. Victory Liner then filed a motion for reconsideration but the notice of hearing did not specify a date and time, only that it would be at the court's convenience. The Supreme Court ruled the motion was not properly filed due to the defective notice and became final, as the notice requirements of Section 5 and 6 of Rule 15 were not met.

Uploaded by

carol anne
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
275 views1 page

VILLACERAN, Kent-Kent R. Section JD-E CIVPRO

A collision occurred between Victory Liner Inc. and Malinias, leading Malinias to seek damages. When Victory Liner failed to appear during trial, Malinias was declared the winner by default. Victory Liner then filed a motion for reconsideration but the notice of hearing did not specify a date and time, only that it would be at the court's convenience. The Supreme Court ruled the motion was not properly filed due to the defective notice and became final, as the notice requirements of Section 5 and 6 of Rule 15 were not met.

Uploaded by

carol anne
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

VILLACERAN, Kent-Kent R.

Section JD-E CIVPRO

41. RULE 15 Victory Liner Inc. vs. Malinias, G.R. No. 151170, May 29, 2007

Facts:
A collision transpired between the parties which is why the Respondent sought
damages against the Petitioner. During the presentation of evidence, no one made an
appearance for the Petitioner since his counsel already withdrew. With this, the
petitioner was declared in default and the MTC ruled in favor of Respondent. Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching to it a notice of hearing which did not
specify a specific schedule for the hearing, instead it only provided that it will be at the
convenience of the court and the parties. The defect in the notice of hearing rendered
the motion for reconsideration “deemed not filed”. The period of appeal was not tolled,
and the MTC decision became final and executory.

Issue:
Whether or not the Motion for Reconsideration should be “deemed not filed” due
to the defect in the notice of hearing

Ruling:
Yes. The Motion for Reconsideration should be deemed not filed.

Section 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides that the notice of
hearing shall be addressed to the parties concerned and shall specify the time and date
of the hearing of the motion; no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of
service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the
adverse party are not affected.

You might also like