'Motion hearings are a rite of passage for young litigators."
'Motion hearings are a rite of passage for young litigators."
It is a common phrase uttered by a lawyer in open court before making a request or application for relief. In legal parlance this is known as a “motion.” A motion shall be made in writing except those made by the lawyer in open court. For a young lawyer like myself 28 years ago, appearing in court for a motion hearing is the rite of passage into litigation practice.
I still remember the first day I was instructed to appear for a motion hearing; the reminder was short and simple – be on time, state who you represent, and when your case is called by the clerk of court, request for at least 10 days to file a comment. It was fairly easy work for a young lawyer since it did not entail much thinking and preparation.
However, handling cases, filing motions, opposing motions and attending motion hearings through the years, made me realize that the entire process causes a tremendous delay in the progress of the case. It definitely eats up at least two to six months in the life of the case depending on the complexity and impact of the motion to the main action. In fact, the filing of motions have been used and abused by some lawyers to stall the final resolutions of their cases.
Setting motion hearings also presents monetary gain for some lawyers, especially for those who are paid on a per-appearance-in-hearing basis. Hence, the more hearings you have, the more you get paid. However, it does not mean that lawyers only work for their attorney’s fees because most of them also provide pro-bono services.
In a recent amendment, the provision in the Rules of Civil Procedure on motion hearings as initiated by lawyers was dropped and deleted. This means that lawyers can no longer set a motion for hearing. It is now only the court in the exercise of its discretion that can call for a hearing (Section 6, Rule 15, Rules of Civil Procedure). With this amendment, the trial court rules are now consistent with the appellate court rules that say “motions shall not be set for hearing unless the court otherwise directs (Section 3, Rule 49, Rules of Civil Procedure).”
To further end the delay caused by the filings of motions, the amendment had to limit the exchange of the pleadings to just a comment by the opposing party within five days from receipt of the litigious motion (Section 5 (b), Rule 15, Rules of Civil Procedure). An important change in the Rules on Motions is the classification of motions as either “non-litigous” and “litigious”; non-litigious motions are motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party (Section 4, Rule 15, Rules of Civil Procedure), while litigious motions are the opposite.
Examples of non-litigious motions are: motions for postponement, motions for extension of time to file an answer, motions for issuance of alias summons and motions for issuance of final certificates of sale (Section 4, Rule 15, Rules of Civil Procedure). On the other hand, motions to dismiss, motions for bill of particulars, motions for reconsideration, motions for execution pending appeal, motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, among others, are litigious motions (Section 5(a), Rule 15, Rules of Civil Procedure).
For non-litigious motions, there is no hearing and comment required from the other party, and the court will have to resolve the motion within five days from receipt (Section 4, Rule 15, Rules of Civil Procedure). Likewise for litigious motions, there is no hearing unless required by the court. There is, however, an opportunity for the other party to oppose or comment within a period of five days from its receipt. The litigious motion will have to be resolved by the court within fifteen days from its receipt of the opposition (Section 5 (b), Rule 15, Rules of Civil Procedure).
On the other hand, in criminal cases motions are classified as either “meritorious” or “prohibited.” Prohibited motions are those which are denied by the court outright before the scheduled arraignment without the need for comment or opposition (Rule III, 2(b), Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial In Criminal Cases) because they have a tendency to delay the proceedings. Some of the prohibited motions are: motions for determination of probable cause, motions to quash information when the ground raised is not stated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, motions to suspend the arraignment based on grounds not stated in Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and motions for reinvestigation when the preliminary investigation is not required in the case as set forth in Section 8, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule III, 2(b), Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial In Criminal Cases).
Meritorious motions are those that allege plausible grounds supported by relevant documents and competent evidence, such as motions to quash a warrant of arrest, motions to discharge an accused as a state witness under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, motions to withdraw an information, and motions to exclude an accused originally charged (Rule III, 2(c), Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial In Criminal Cases). These guidelines are directed to limit the filing of baseless and erroneous motions in criminal cases.
A question consistently asked regarding motions in criminal cases is whether Rule 15, which deleted the requirement of a notice of hearing, applies in criminal cases. The answer is in the affirmative, since Rule 15 is a general provision that applies to to both civil and criminal cases. However, some lawyers who are abundantly careful insist on incorporating a notice of hearing even if it is no longer necessary.
The changes in the Rules on Motions which has been spearheaded by the Supreme Court is just one of the numerous revisions geared towards expediting the proceedings in court. The Supreme Court knows full well that motions account for more than fifty percent of the pleadings and documents submitted by the parties in every case in court. Hence, the classification of the essential motions into either litigious and meritious will definitely speed up the resolution of cases in courts. The innovations in the Rules may not be perfect, but these will certainly ease our clogged court dockets.
