FRANCISCO B. SEBASTIAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. MANUEL F. CABAL, AS CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIP­PINES, AND ISAGANI V. CAMPO, AS CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, …

When Captain Francisco B. Sebastian, an officer in the Philippine
Constabulary, initially commenced on March 13, 1961 a petition for prohibition
with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Quezon to prevent his reversion from active duty to
inactive status, the main respondents in said case were Generals Manuel F.
Cabal and Isagani V. Campo, then Chief of Staff, AFP,
and Chief of the Philippine Constabulary, respectively.  During the pendency
of the case however, Generals Cabal and Campo retired; and to succeed them in
their respective positions Generals Alfredo M. Santos and Nicanor
D. Garcia were appointed.

On May 13, 1964
the lower court, formally informed by petitioner’s counsel that respondents
were no longer in the government service, temporarily postponed the hear­ing of
the case until such time as “counsel for the petitioner shall have filed
the amended pleading as mentioned by him.” On May 15, 1964 petitioner simply filed a motion to
substitute Generals Santos and Garcia for Generals Cabal and Campo without,
however, including a notice of the time and place of hearing of his motion.

On July 27, 1965
the lower court dismissed the main petition on the ground that despite the
lapse of over a year since counsel for petitioner was ordered to amend the
complaint, he had not done so and neither had he taken the proper steps for the
substitution of parties.  Petitioner’s
plea for reconsideration having been denied, this case is before us on appeal
from that order of dismissal.

Petitioner maintains that his filing of the “Motion for
Substitution of Parties” dated May 15, 1964 was a sub­stantial compliance
with the previous order of the lower court for the amendment of the
petition.  This contention would probably
merit some attention were it not for the motion’s inherent
defect that cannot be lightly disregarded – it did not contain a written notice
of the time and place of hearing.

The Rules of Court are quite clear.  For motions in general, Rule 15, Sections 4
and 5, provides that notice of a motion shall state the time and place of
hearing and shall be served upon all parties concerned at least three days in
advance.  And according to section 6 of
the same Rule no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of such
notice.  Indeed it has been held that in
such a case the motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper.  The reason is obvious: unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing the court would
have no way to deter­mine whether the adverse party agrees or objects to the
motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the Rules
themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or
opposition (Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Bath Construction and
Company et al., L-16636, June 24, 1965; 14 SCRA 435; Fulton Insurance Company
vs. Manila Railroad, et al., L-24263, November 18, 1967; 21 SCRA 974).

Certain additional considerations brought up by the Solicitor
General in his brief in behalf of the respondents,
deserve to be mentioned in passing, although they touch on petitioner’s cause
on the merits and not on the Strictly procedural question before us.  In their answer to the petition below
respondents alleged that “the Armed Forces of the Philippines has
suspended the reversion of reserve officers who, like petitioner, have to their
credit no less than five (5) years of active commissioned service as of June
19, 1959 by virtue of a letter directive of the Chief of Staff… dated March 18,
1961;” and that “with the suspension of petitioner’s reversion, the
issues raised by the petition have become purely academic.”

On March 2, 1962 petitioner filed a pleading also entitled
“petition,” in which he alleged that after the lower court issued the
writ of preliminary injunction dated March 14, 1961, ordering respondents to
refrain from reverting petitioner to inactive status, he received a notice on
October 6, 1961 from the AFP Chief of Staff, through the AFP Review Board,
“that he will be investigated, the subject of which is: Separation from
the Service.” Acting on his prayer in said subsequent petition the lower
court issued another writ of preliminary injunction, dated October 26, 1962, order­ing respondents to refrain
from investigating petitioner.

On July 13, 1965
respondents filed a motion to dismiss petition and to dissolve the writs of
preliminary injunction.  Relied upon as
ground for the motion was the decision of this Court in the case of “Constante Alzate vs. GHQ
Efficiency and Separation Board,” wherein it was held that Section 1 of
Republic. Act No. 1382 (June 18, 1955), which provides that reserve officers
with at least ten years of service… “shall not be reverted into inactive
status except for cause after proper court-martial proceedings or upon their
own request,” which provision was invoked by petitioner in his
original petition, did not prohibit the investigation of a reserve officer by
the GHQ Efficiency and Separation Board of the AFP for the purpose of
determining “his suit­ability to remain or be separated from the service
by reason of certain charges against him.”

As the matter stands, therefore: (1) respondents have denied that
there is a move to revert petitioner to inactive status, and hence there is no
cause for him to invoke the provisions of Republic Act No. 1382; and (2) as far
as the right of respondents to have him investigated for purposes of separation
is concerned, the question has been settled in the Alzate
case mentioned above.

The foregoing additional considerations are, of course, set forth
merely to underscore the fact that the dismissal of the petition by the trial
court has not really prejudiced petitioner in his substantial rights.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, without
pronouncements as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, and
Villamor, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J.,no part.