ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136161. January 20, 1999]

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION vs. FIDEL D. DECHAVEZ, JR., et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 20, 1999.

G.R. No. 136161 (San Miguel Corporation vs. Fidel D Dechavez, Jr., et al.)

Before us is a petition praying for the review and consequent reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts show that petitioner San Miguel Corporation sold to respondent Dechavez beer products in the total amount of P64,123.00. A partial payment of P1,394.00 was made by respondent, leaving a balance of P62,729.00. Several demands were made but no further payment was affected. Hence, SMC filed a complaint for a sum of money against Dechavez. After receiving summons, Dechavez filed a motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue. SMC filed its Comment/Opposition, citing among other things, Dechavez' failure to comply with Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Sometime in July 1996, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati (Branch 64) denied the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, following some incidents, Dechavez was declared in default and a judgment against him was rendered. A motion for new trial was filed but the METC declined to take favorable action. Thus, Dechavez went to the Regional Trial Court of Makati where he found relief with said court holding:

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing the Decision appealed from is VACATED and the order declaring the defendant Fidel D. Dechavez, Jr. in default is SET ASIDE. The Answer of the defendant is ordered admitted and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

It was then the turn of SMC to go up the hierarchy of Courts. But it was unsuccessful thereat when the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for review.

Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioner contends that the failure of Dechavez to address the notice of hearing of his motion to dismiss to SMC was fatal and rendered the motion a mere scrap of paper. The most pivotal issue for resolution is the propriety of the denial of the motion to dismiss filed by Dechavez for having allegedly violated Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15, as well as its effect on the running of the reglementary period within which to file an answer.

The Court of Appeals found and ruled that the motion was set for hearing on a particular date and time. Hence, SMC cannot deny its timely receipt of a copy of the motion to dismiss before the hearing. What SMC considered as fatal is the fact that such notice was addressed to the branch clerk of court and not to SMC.

The Court of Appeals thus ruled that the motion to dismiss could very well be considered as having substantially complied with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. For after all, the purpose of the notice and contents thereof is to prevent surprises and to afford the adverse party a chance to be heard. What was considered decisive is that the adverse party had sufficient notice of the hearing. Here, SMC was given all the opportunity to study and meet the arguments of Dechavez. Moreover, the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the admission of Dechavez that he owes SMC the amount of only P25,000.00 out of the P62,729.00 prayed for in the complaint is a good and valid defense which necessitates presentation of evidence.

After due consideration, the Court is convinced and so holds that the petition should be denied pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 45. The issues raised are too unsubstantial to require consideration. The courts below have sufficiently, and we believed, correctly, discussed and ruled on the issues raised.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE