Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, motions play a crucial role in the progression of court proceedings, serving as formal requests for judicial action outside of pleadings. The classification of a motion as either litigious or non-litigious is pivotal, as it determines the procedural requirements for its resolution, including whether a hearing is mandatory and the timelines involved. This distinction is enshrined in the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC), specifically under Rule 15, which governs motions in civil cases. The query at hand—whether an "urgent motion to set hearing" qualifies as litigious or non-litigious—requires an examination of the rules, their rationale, and practical applications within the Philippine judicial context.

This article delves comprehensively into the topic, exploring the definitions, classifications, procedural implications, and related considerations under the Rules of Court. It addresses the nature of an urgent motion to set hearing, its placement within the litigious/non-litigious dichotomy, potential exceptions, and broader implications for litigants and the courts.

Defining Litigious and Non-Litigious Motions

To contextualize the classification, it is essential to understand the foundational definitions provided by the Rules of Court.

Litigious Motions

Litigious motions are those that, if granted, could potentially prejudice the substantive rights of the adverse party. As such, they necessitate a hearing to afford the opposing side an opportunity to object or respond, ensuring due process. Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules explicitly enumerates litigious motions, including but not limited to:

Motion for bill of particulars;
Motion to dismiss;
Motion for new trial;
Motion for reconsideration;
Motion for extension of time to file pleadings (except for filing an answer, subject to Rule 11, Section 12);
Motion for summary judgment;
Demurrer to evidence;
Motion to declare defendant in default; and
Other similar motions that may adversely affect the opposing party's rights.

The key characteristic is the potential for prejudice. For instance, a motion to dismiss could terminate the case entirely, depriving the plaintiff of their day in court without proper adjudication.

Non-Litigious Motions

In contrast, non-litigious motions are those that can be acted upon by the court without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. These are typically administrative or procedural in nature, facilitating the smooth conduct of proceedings rather than resolving substantive issues. Rule 15, Section 4 lists examples such as:

Motion for the issuance of an alias summons;
Motion for extension to file answer or pleading;
Motion for postponement;
Motion for the issuance of a writ of execution;
Motion for consolidation; and
Other similar motions.

The court may resolve these ex parte or without a hearing, as they do not impinge on fundamental rights. This classification promotes judicial efficiency by allowing minor matters to be handled expeditiously.

The Nature of an Urgent Motion to Set Hearing

An "urgent motion to set hearing" is not explicitly defined or enumerated in the Rules of Court but arises in practice as a request to schedule a hearing on a priority basis, often due to time-sensitive circumstances such as impending prescription of actions, threats to evidence preservation, or emergencies affecting the parties' interests. It may pertain to setting a hearing for the main case, a pending motion, or incidental matters like preliminary conferences.

Contextual Application in Philippine Procedure

In civil proceedings, hearings are integral under various rules:

Rule 18 (Pre-Trial) requires setting pre-trial conferences.
Rule 30 (Trial) involves calendaring hearings.
Rule 15 itself mandates that litigious motions be set for hearing by the movant within five days of filing, with notice to the adverse party.

An urgent motion to set hearing typically seeks to accelerate this scheduling. For example, in cases involving temporary restraining orders (Rule 58) or preliminary injunctions, urgency is inherent, but the motion to set the hearing itself is ancillary.

Classification: Non-Litigious by Default

Based on the criteria in Rule 15, an urgent motion to set hearing generally falls under the non-litigious category for several reasons:

Lack of Prejudice: Granting such a motion merely schedules a hearing, providing both parties an opportunity to be heard. It does not resolve substantive issues or alter rights; instead, it ensures the case progresses. Unlike a motion to dismiss, which could end litigation, setting a hearing upholds due process without bias.
Similarity to Enumerated Non-Litigious Motions: It akin to a "motion for postponement" (explicitly non-litigious), which also deals with scheduling. Both involve calendar management, an administrative function of the court clerk or judge under Rule 20 (Calendar of Cases).
Ex Parte Resolution Permissible: Rule 15, Section 5 allows non-litigious motions to be acted upon without hearing. In urgent scenarios, the court may grant the motion ex parte if no prejudice ensues, aligning with the principle of speedy justice under the Constitution (Article III, Section 16) and the Rules' emphasis on efficiency.
Judicial Discretion: Judges have inherent power to control their dockets (Rule 135, Section 5). An urgent request to set hearing invokes this discretion without necessitating adversarial proceedings.

However, the "urgent" descriptor does not automatically alter the classification. Urgency may justify priority in calendaring but does not transform the motion into a litigious one unless it seeks additional relief that could prejudice the other party (e.g., combining it with a request for ex parte issuance of a writ).

Potential Exceptions and Nuances

While typically non-litigious, certain contexts could complicate the classification:

When It Borders on Litigious

If Combined with Substantive Relief: If the urgent motion to set hearing is bundled with a litigious request (e.g., urgent motion to set hearing on a motion to dismiss), the overall filing may require hearing under Rule 15, Section 6, which prohibits omnibus motions mixing litigious and non-litigious elements without proper procedure.
In Special Proceedings or Other Rules: In special civil actions (Rules 62-71) or special proceedings (Rule 72), such as guardianship or habeas corpus, urgency might elevate the motion. For instance, in habeas corpus (Rule 102), hearings are set urgently by mandate, but the motion itself remains procedural.
Criminal Procedure Context: Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rule 110 et seq.), motions follow similar principles, though not explicitly classified as litigious/non-litigious. An urgent motion to set hearing (e.g., for bail) would be treated analogously, prioritizing non-prejudicial actions.
Administrative Matters in Courts: In administrative cases before the Supreme Court or quasi-judicial bodies, motions to set hearing are routinely non-litigious, as seen in A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC (Rules on Administrative Cases).

Procedural Requirements for Filing

Regardless of classification:

Form and Content: Rule 15, Section 2 requires motions to be in writing (except those made in open court), stating the relief sought, grounds, and supporting affidavits if necessary.
Notice and Service: For non-litigious motions, notice is still required (Rule 15, Section 3), but the court may act without awaiting response.
Hearing Timeline: If deemed litigious, the motion must be set for hearing within 10 days (Rule 15, Section 5), with resolution within 30 days (Section 9).
Urgency Factor: The movant must justify urgency, perhaps via affidavits showing irreparable injury, aligning with provisional remedies (Rule 57-61).

Implications for Litigants and Judicial Practice

For Litigants

Strategic Use: Filing an urgent motion to set hearing can expedite cases, beneficial in time-bound matters like election protests (COMELEC Rules) or labor disputes (NLRC Rules). However, abuse may lead to sanctions under Rule 15, Section 10 (frivolous motions).
Opposition: Adverse parties can file comments within five days (Rule 15, Section 7), even for non-litigious motions, to argue against urgency.
Appeals and Remedies: Denial of such a motion is interlocutory and generally not appealable (Rule 41), but certiorari (Rule 65) may lie if grave abuse of discretion occurs.

For Courts

Efficiency vs. Due Process: Classifying it as non-litigious supports the judiciary's push for decongesting dockets, as emphasized in the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC) and Continuous Trial Guidelines.
Case Management: Courts may use case management conferences (Rule 18) to obviate separate motions for setting hearings.

Broader Legal Principles

This classification reflects constitutional mandates for speedy disposition (Article VIII, Section 15) and procedural due process. It also intersects with ethical rules, such as the Code of Professional Responsibility, requiring lawyers to avoid dilatory tactics.

Conclusion

In summary, an urgent motion to set hearing is fundamentally non-litigious under the Philippine Rules of Court, as it pertains to procedural scheduling without inherent prejudice to the adverse party. This aligns with the Rules' objective of balancing efficiency and fairness. However, contextual factors—such as bundling with litigious elements or specific procedural contexts—may necessitate cautious application. Litigants should draft such motions with clear justification for urgency to ensure prompt judicial action, ultimately contributing to the effective administration of justice in the Philippines.