NOTICE OF HEARING

Jurisprudence confirms that the requirements laid down in Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court that the notice of hearing shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion, are mandatory.  If not religiously complied with, they render the motion pro forma.  As such, the motion is a useless piece of paper that will not toll the running of the prescriptive period.

Yet, again, there were previous cases with peculiar circumstances that had compelled us to liberally apply the rules on notice of hearing and recognize substantial compliance with the same.  Once such case is Philippine National Bank v. Paneda, where we adjudged: 

Thus, even if the Motion may be defective for failure to address the notice of hearing of said motion to the parties concerned, the defect was cured by the court's taking cognizance thereof and the fact that the adverse party was otherwise notified of the existence of said pleading. There is substantial compliance with the foregoing rules if a copy of the said motion for reconsideration was furnished to the counsel of herein private respondents. (City of Dumaguete vs. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.).