G.R. No. 173628 - SEVERINO S. CAPIRAL, VS. SIMEONA CAPIRAL ROBLES AND VICENTE CAPIRAL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premised considered, let the instant motion be set for hearing on April 10, 2003 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. [5] On August 12, 2003, petitioner filed a Motion to Resolve [6] praying that an Order be issued by the RTC resolving petitioner's Motion to Dismiss. On August 15, 2003, the RTC issued its first assailed Order [7] denying petitioner's Motion to Resolve. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration contending that there is no longer any need to set the case for hearing for the reception of evidence to prove the allegations in the Motion to Dismiss considering that, in their Opposition, herein respondents failed to deny nor rebut the material factual allegations in the said Motion. [8] However, the RTC, in its second assailed Order dated January 12, 2004, denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. [9] Subsequently, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA, arguing that the RTC is guilty of grave abuse of discretion in issuing the abovementioned Orders. On May 29, 2006, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision dismissing the special civil action for certiorari and affirming the disputed Orders of the RTC. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it via its Resolution dated July 20, 2006. Hence, the present petition with a sole Assignment of Error, to wit: THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A CLEAR AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE TRIAL-TYPE HEARING REQUIRED BY THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS IN ACCORD WITH SECTION 2, RULE 16 OF [THE] RULES OF COURT. [10] Petitioner contends that there is nothing in Section 2, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court which requires a trial-type hearing for the resolution of a motion to dismiss. Petitioner argues that the RTC, in requiring a trial-type hearing deferred the resolution of the subject Motion to Dismiss and, in so doing, violated Section 3, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. The Court does not agree. Contrary to petitioners contention, insofar as hearings on a motion to dismiss are concerned, Section 2, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court sanctions trial-type proceedings in the sense that the parties are allowed to present evidence and argue their respective positions before the court, thus: Sec. 2. Hearing of Motion . - At the hearing of the motion, the parties shall submit their arguments on the questions of law and their evidence on the questions of fact involved except those not available at that time. Should the case go to trial, the evidence presented during the hearing shall automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting the same. In Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation , [11] this Court had occasion to rule that the issues raised in a motion to dismiss have to be determined in accordance with the evidence and facts presented, not on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and that the courts could not afford to dismiss a litigant's complaint on the bas