CASE DIGEST: Three Day Notice Rule

MARILOU S. LAUDE, ET AL, VS. HON. ROLINE M. GINEZ-JABALDE, ET AL. G.R. No. 217456

In a prosecution for murder, petitioners, relatives of the victim, filed an ‘Urgent Motion to Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines to Surrender Custody of Accused to the Olongapo City Jail and a Motion to Allow Media Coverage’, but were only able to furnish a copy to accused’s counsel on the day of the hearing. The motion was denied by the trial court Motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, hence the present petition for certiorari.

HELD: Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or excess of jurisdiction.

‘As an integral component of procedural due process, the three-day notice required by the Rules is not intended for the benefit of the movant. Rather, the requirement is for the purpose of avoiding surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party, who must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the court. Principles of natural justice demand that the right of a party should not be affected without giving it an opportunity to be heard.’