"x x x.
The Court does not see any reason to overturn the CA's finding that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Set the Motion to Dismiss
for Hearing. The established definition of grave abuse of discretion was reiterated inLigeralde v. Patalinghug[5] in this wise:
x x x By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must bepatent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. In sum, for the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must be capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power.[6] (Emphases supplied)
In this case, there is no showing of such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power committed by the trial court. In fact, records reveal that both parties were given ample opportunity to be heard. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was, in fact, held on April 7, 2006. Thereafter, both parties submitted their pleadings setting forth their claims, arguments and supporting evidence. Petitioner points out that at the April 7, 2006 hearing, the parties were only allowed to file their pleadings, and no actual hearing, or presentation of evidence, was conducted. It is an oft-repeated principle that where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[7] Moreover, the issues that petitioner seeks to tackle in the requested hearing on the motion to dismiss,i.e., novation, payment, extinguishment or abandonment of the obligation, are the meat of their defense and would require the presentation of voluminous evidence. Such issues are better threshed out during trial proper. Thus, the trial court was not amiss in ruling that petitioner already had the opportunity to be heard and there was no longer any need to set another hearing on the motion to dismiss.
x x x."
