See - Orola vs Alovera : 111074 : July 14, 2000 : J. Pardo : First Division (lawphil.net)
"x x x.
As to the first issue, petitioner maintains that the lower court erred in resolving the motion to cancel documents without first hearing the triable issues of fact and law involved. However, in time, private respondent filed an opposition to the motion and the parties manifested that they were not presenting any testimonial evidence. Hence, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the parties may not now be permitted to complain that they were deprived of due process because of the absence of further hearing for that purpose before the court resolved the motion. The essence of due process is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to support any evidence he may have in support of his defense[5] or simply an opportunity to be heard.[6] What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard; hence, a party cannot feign denial of due process where he had been afforded the opportunity to present his side.[7] The due process requirement is satisfied where the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers.[8] Here, private respondent in fact filed an opposition, and the parties manifested that they were not presenting any testimonial evidence.
x x x."
