apprac rules 44 to 56 v3 (final)

7/23/2019 APPRAC Rules 44 to 56 v3 (Final)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/apprac-rules-44-to-56-v3-final 1/30

JUSTICE DELEON

BARRON|CHING|DIZON|FERRER|GRAN|ILANO|LEONARDO LORESCA| SALVA SY| VILCHES| YAO APRAC|| Ateneo Law School

RULES 44 to 56 (excet 45 ! 4"#

R$%e 44& Sec' )

*e+,o-. /0' U+1te, Coco+$t .+, 2%.+te30 B.+ (#

F.ct071. Petitioners fled a Complaint or annulment o titles,

oreclosure proceedings and certifcate o sale with the RTCo Lipa Cit. The !asis o their complaint was a oreclosureproceeding o"er a real estate mortgage that the enteredinto with respondent #CP$. The latter emerged as thehighest !idder. %or the petitioner&s ailure to redeem withinthe period, #CP$ consolidated its title o"er the propert.

'. Petitioners contend that the oreclosure proceedings(e)tra*udicial+ "iolated Act 1-.

. A otion to /ismiss was fled ! #CP$ or ailure toprosecute (petitioners ailed to set the case or pre0trial ater

the last pleading had !een fled+.. The petitioners, through counsel Att. ala!anan, fled

an opposition to the T/ reasoning out that the counsel o record was Att. Rosales, and that he died. $ecause o hisdeath, Att. ala!anan, who was the law partner o Att.Rosales, orgot a!out the case.

-. RTC granted the T/ fled ! #CP$.2. A otion or Reconsideration was fled ! the petitioners

!ut was denied. 3ence, the appealed the RTC&s ordergranting the T/ to the CA and fled an Appellant&s $rie.

4. #CP$ fled a otion to /ismiss Appeal on the groundthat the Appellant&s $rie ailed to compl with the

re5uirements under Section 1, Rule o the 1664 Rules o Ci"il Procedure. Respondent contended that the Appellants&$rie did not ha"e the ollowing items7 (1+ A su!*ect inde) o the matter in the !rie with a digest o the arguments andpage reerences, and a ta!le o cases alpha!eticallarranged, te)t!oo8s and statutes cited with reerences tothe pages where the are cited9 ('+ an assignment o errors9(+ on the authorities cited, reerences to the page o thereport at which the case !egins and page o the report onwhich the citation is ound9 (+ page reerences to the recordin the Statement o %acts and Statement o the Case.

:. Respondent contended that the a!sence o a specifcassignment o errors or o page reerences to the record inthe Appellants& $rie is a ground or dismissal o the appealunder Section 1 (+, Rule -;.

6. Petitioners contended that the assignment o errors were

onl designated as <=ssues> in their Appellants& $rie9 andalthough the designation o the <Assignment o ?rror> ma"ar, the su!stance thereo remains. oreo"er, petitionersstated that the te)t!oo8s and statutes were citedimmediatel ater the portion where the are 5uoted, whichis more con"enient and acilitates read reerence o thelegal and *urisprudential !asis o the arguments. Theclaimed that the a!sence o a su!*ect inde) does notsu!stantiall de"iate rom the re5uirements o the Rules o Court, !ecause one can easil go o"er the Appellants& $rie and can designate the parts with nominal prudence. Thepointed out that Section 2 o the Rules o Court pro"ides or

a li!eral construction o the Rules in order to promote theiro!*ecti"e o securing a *ust, speed and ine)pensi"edisposition o e"er action and proceeding.

1;. CA dismissed the appeal. =t held that the right to appealis a statutor right and a part who see8s to a"ail o theright must aithull compl with the rules. =t ound that theAppellants& $rie ailed to compl with Section 1, Rule o the 1664 Re"ised Rules o Ci"il Procedure7 =n this case, theplainti@0appellant&s !rie ailed to pro"ide an inde), li8e ata!le o contents, to acilitate the re"iew o appeals !pro"iding read reerences to the records and documentsreerred to therein.

I00$e7 B the CA erred in dismissing the appeal on theground that the Appellant&s $rie ailed to compl with Sec 1, Rule o RoC as said !rie did not ha"e a su!*ect inde), andassignment o errors and page reerences to the record in theStatement o the %acts.

He%,7 D.

1. As to the Su!*ect =nde)

1



JUSTICE DELEON


a. The Appellants& $rie o petitioners did not ha"e asu!*ect inde). The importance o a su!*ect inde)should not !e underestimated.

!. The su!*ect inde) unctions li8e a ta!le o contents,

acilitating the re"iew o appeals ! pro"iding readreerence. #nli8e in other *urisdictions, there is nolimit on the length o appeal !ries or appealmemoranda fled !eore appellate courts. Thedanger o this is the "er real possi!ilit that there"iewing tri!unal will !e swamped with "oluminousdocuments. This occurs e"en though the rulesconsistentl urge the parties to !e <!rie> or<concise> in the drating o pleadings, !ries, andother papers to !e fled in court. The su!*ect inde)ma8es readil a"aila!le at one&s fngertips thesu!*ect o the contents o the !rie so that the need

to thum! through the !rie page ater page to locatea part&s arguments, or a particular citation, orwhate"er else needs to !e ound and considered, iso!"iated.

'. As to the Assignment o ?rrors7

a. oreo"er, the Appellants& $rie had no assignment o errors, !ut petitioners insist that it is em!odied in the<=ssues> o the !rie. The re5uirement under Section1, Rule o the 1664 Rules o Ci"il Procedure or

an <assignment o errors> in paragraph (!+ thereo isdi@erent rom a <statement o the issues o act orlaw> in paragraph (e+ thereo. The statement o issues is not to !e conused with the assignment o errors, since the are not one and the same9otherwise, the rules would not re5uire a separatestatement or each.

!. An assignment o errors is an enumeration ! theappellant o the errors alleged to ha"e !eencommitted ! the trial court or which heBshe see8sto o!tain a re"ersal o the *udgment, while the

statement o issues puts orth the 5uestions o actor law to !e resol"ed ! the appellate court.

. As to the Statement o %acts7

a. %urther, the Court o Appeals ound that theStatement o %acts was not supported ! pagereerences to the record. The acts constitute the!ac8!one o a legal argument9 the aredeterminati"e o the law and *urisprudenceapplica!le to the case, and conse5uentl, will go"ernthe appropriate relie.

!. Appellants should remem!er that the Court o Appeals is empowered to re"iew !oth 5uestions o law and o acts. Dtherwise, where onl a pure

5uestion o law is in"ol"ed, appeal would pertain tothis Court. An appellant, thereore, should ta8e careto state the acts accuratel though it is permissi!leto present them in a manner a"ora!le to one part.%acts which are admitted re5uire no urther proo,whereas acts in dispute must !e !ac8ed !e"idence.

c. Relati"e thereto, the rule specifcall re5uires thatone&s statement o acts should !e supported !page reerences to the record. =ndeed, diso!ediencetherewith has !een punished ! dismissal o the

appeal. Page reerences to the record are not anempt re5uirement.

d. = a statement o act is unaccompanied ! a pagereerence to the record, it ma !e presumed to !ewithout support in the record and ma !e stric8en ordisregarded altogether.

R$%e 5& Sec' 8Ae%%.+t90 :31e; < 3e=$101te0

De L1.+o /0' Co$3t o; Ae.%0 (#

'



JUSTICE DELEON


F.ct071. $en*amin Tango, respondent, e)ecuted two R?s o"er

his house and lot in EC in a"or o San iguel Corporation(SC+. The mortgages were third part or accommodation

mortgages on !ehal o the spouses $ernardino andCarmelita =!arra who were dealers o SC products inAparri, Cagaan. Dther deendants in the case were%rancisco A.F. /e Liano and Al!erto D. Gilla0A!rille, Hr., whoare senior e)ecuti"es o petitioner SC.

'. A case was fled which resulted to the cancellation o thetwo R?s. SC, /e Liano and A!rille appealed the aoresaiddecision to the Court o Appeals. =n due time, their counsel,Att. ?dgar $. Aa!le, fled an AppellantsI $rie which ailedto compl with Section 1, Rule o the Rules o Court.

. Tango was 5uic8 to notice these defciencies, andaccordingl fled a otion to /ismiss Appeal (!rie did not

contain a Su!*ect =nde) nor a Ta!le o Cases and Authorities,with page reerences. oreo"er, the Statement o the Case,Statement o %acts, and Arguments in the $rie has no pagereerence to the record+.

. Petitioners fled a otion to Admit Amended /eendants0AppellantsI $rie which was denied. 3ence, the presentpetition.

I00$e7 B the CA erred in dismissing SC&s appeal on theground o pure technicalities.He%,7 D.

1. Hustice alcolm7 the word J!rieJ is deri"ed rom the Latinbrevis, and the %rench briefe, and literall means a short orcondensed statement. The purpose o the !rie, as all lawstudents and lawers 8now, is to present to the court inconcise orm the points and 5uestions in contro"ers, and! air argument on the acts and law o the case to assistthe court in arri"ing at a *ust and proper conclusion. Thebrief should be so prepared as to minimize the labor of thecourt in the examination of the record upon which theappeal is heard and determined.

'. %irst re5uirement is a S#$H?CT =/?K.

a. The inde) is intended to acilitate the re"iew o appeals ! pro"iding read reerence, unctioningmuch li8e a ta!le o contents. #nli8e in other

*urisdiction, there is no limit on the length o appeal!ries or appeal memoranda fled !eore appellate

courts. The danger o this is the "er real possi!ilitthat the re"iewing tri!unal will !e swamped with"oluminous documents. This occurs e"en though therules consistentl urge the parties to !e J!rieJ orJconciseJ in the drating o pleadings, !ries, andother papers to !e fled in court.

!. The su!*ect inde) ma8es readil a"aila!le at oneIsfngertips the su!*ect o the contents o the !rie sothat the need to thum! through the !rie page aterpage to locate a partIs arguments, or a particularcitation, or whate"er else needs to !e ound and

considered, is o!"iated.

. An ASS=F?T D% ?RDRS ollows the S#$H?CT =/?K.

a. An assignment o errors in appellate procedure is anenumeration ! appellant or plainti@ in error o theerrors alleged to ha"e !een committed ! the court!elow in the trial o the case upon which he see8s too!tain a re"ersal o the *udgment or decree9 it is inthe nature o a pleading, and perorms in theappellate court the same oce as a declaration or

complaint in a court o original *urisdiction. Such anassignment is appellantIs complaint, or pleading, inthe appellate court, and ta8es the place o adeclaration or !ill9 an appeal without an assignmento errors would !e similar to a suit without acomplaint, !ill, or declaration. The assignment isappellantIs declaration or complaint against the trial

*udge, charging harmul error, and proo "el non o assignment is within the record on appeal.

!. The o!*ect o such pleadings is to point out thespecifc errors claimed to ha"e !een committed !

the court !elow, in order to ena!le the re"iewing



JUSTICE DELEON


court and the opposing part to see on what pointsappellant or plainti@ in error intends to as8 a re"ersalo the *udgment or decree, and to limit discussion tothose points. The oce o an assignment o errors isnot to point out legal contentions, !ut onl to inorm

the appellate court that appellant assigns aserroneous certain named rulings9 the unction o theassignment is to group and !ring orward such o thee)ceptions pre"iousl noted in the case on appeal asappellant desires to preser"e and present to theappellant.

c. =t has !een held that a general assignment o errorsis unaccepta!le under the rules. Thus, a statement o the ollowing tenor7 that Jthe Court o %irst =nstanceo this Cit incurred error in rendering the *udgmentappealed rom, or it is contrar to law and the

weight o the e"idence,J was deemed insucient. The appellant has to speci in what aspect o the

law or the acts that the trial court erred. Theconclusion, thereore, is that the appellant mustcareull ormulate his assignment o errors.

. STAT??T D% T3? CAS? and STAT??T D% %ACTS.

a. A statement o the case gi"es the appellate tri!unalan o"er"iew o the *udicial antecedents o the case,pro"iding material inormation regarding the nature

o the contro"ers, the proceedings !eore the trialcourt, the orders and rulings ele"ated on appeal, andthe *udgment itsel. These data ena!le the appellatecourt to ha"e a !etter grasp o the matter entrustedto it or its appraisal.

!. The statement o acts comprises the "er heart o the appellantIs !rie. The acts constitute the!ac8!one o a legal argument9 the aredeterminati"e o the law and *urisprudenceapplica!le to the case, and conse5uentl, will go"ernthe appropriate relie. Appellants should remem!er

that the Court o Appeals is empowered to re"iew

!oth 5uestions o law and o acts. Dtherwise, whereonl a pure 5uestion o law is in"ol"ed, appeal wouldpertain to this Court. An appellant, thereore, shouldta8e care to state the acts accuratel though it ispermissi!le to present them in a manner a"ora!le to

one part. The !rie must state the acts admitted !the parties, as well as the acts in contro"ers. Tolamen, the distinction ma appear insu!stantial, !utthe di@erence is clear to the practitioner and thestudent o law. %acts which are admitted re5uire nourther proo, whereas acts in dispute must !e!ac8ed ! e"idence. Relati"e thereto, the rulespecifcall re5uires that oneIs statement o actsshould !e supported ! page reerences to therecord. =ndeed, diso!edience therewith has !eenpunished ! dismissal o the appeal.1 Pagereerences to the record are not an empt

re5uirement. = a statement o act is unaccompanied! a page reerence to the record, it ma !epresumed to !e without support in the record andma !e stric8en or disregarded altogether.

-. STAT??T D% =SS#?S "s. ASS=F?T D% ?RRDRS.

a. The statement o issues puts orth the 5uestions o act or law to !e resol"ed ! the appellate court.

!. Thereater, the appellant is re5uired to present his

arguments on each assigned error. An appellantIsarguments go hand in hand with his assignment o errors, or the ormer pro"ide the *ustifcationsupporting his contentions, and in so doing resol"esthe issues.

2. The rules re5uire that authorities should !e cited ! thepage o the report at which the case !egins, as well as the page of the report where the citation is found. This rule isimposed or the con"enience o the appellate court, oro!"ious reasons7 since authorities relied upon ! the partiesare chec8ed or accurac and aptness, the are located



JUSTICE DELEON


more easil as the appellate court is not !ound to peruse"olume upon "olume, and page ater page, o reports.

4. Lastl, the appellant is re5uired to state, under theappropriate heading, the relies praed or. =n so doing, the

appellate court is let in no dou!t as to the result desired !the appellant, and act as the circumstances ma warrant.

2>1%11+e H.? Co3o3.t1o+ /0' Lee (#F.ct07

1. Respondent Gi"ian Tan Lee fled a Complaint againstPhilippine 3aw8 Corporation and deendant argarito A"ilaor damages !ased on 5uasi0delict, arising rom a "ehicularaccident. The accident in"ol"ed a motorccle, a passenger

*eep, and a !us with $od o. 116. The !us was owned !petitioner Philippine 3aw8 Corporation, and was then !eingdri"en ! argarito A"ila. =t resulted in the death o herhus!and, Sil"ino Tan.

'. Petitioner denied lia!ilit or the "ehicular accident, allegingthat the immediate and pro)imate cause o the accidentwas the rec8lessness o Sil"ino Tan. Petitioner asserted thatit e)ercised the diligence o a good ather o the amil inthe selection and super"ision o its emploees, includingargarito A"ila.

. The trial court rendered *udgment against petitioner anddeendant argarito A"ila. Dn appeal, the Court o Appeals

armed the decision o the trial court with modifcation inthe award o damages and held A"ila and Philippine 3aw8solidaril lia!le.

. As regards the issue on the damages awarded, petitionercontends that it was the onl one that appealed the decisiono the trial court with respect to the award o actual andmoral damages9 hence, the Court o Appeals erred inawarding other 8inds o damages in a"or o respondent,who did not appeal rom the trial court&s decision.

I00$e7 B petitioner is lia!le to respondent or damagesand B the damages awarded ! respondent Court o Appeals areproper.He%,7 M?S to !oth.

1. Section :, Rule -1 o the 1664 Rules o Ci"il Procedurepro"ides7 no error which does not a@ect the *urisdiction o"erthe su!*ect matter or the "alidit o the *udgment appealedrom or the proceedings therein will !e considered unlessstated in the assignment o errors, or closel related to ordependent on an assigned error and properl argued in the!rie, sa"e as the court pass upon plain errors and clericalerrors.

'. Sec. :, which is an amendment o the ormer Sec. 4 o thisRule, now includes some su!stantial changes in the rules onassignment o errors.

a. FR7 The !asic procedural rule is that onl errorsclaimed and assigned ! a part will !e considered! the court.

!. ?KC?PT=DS7 ?rrors a@ecting its *urisdiction o"er thesu!*ect matter. To this e)ception has now !eenadded errors a@ecting the "alidit o the *udgmentappealed rom or the proceedings therein.

. Also, e"en i the error complained o ! a part is not

e)pressl stated in his assignment o errors !ut the same isclosel related to or dependent on an assigned error andproperl argued in his !rie, such error ma now !econsidered ! the court. These changes are o

*urisprudential origin.

. The procedure in the Supreme Court !eing generall thesame as that in the Court o Appeals, unless otherwiseindicated (see Secs. ' and , Rule -2+, it has !een held thatthe latter is clothed with ample authorit to re"iew matters,e"en i the are not assigned as errors on appeal, i it fndsthat their consideration is necessar in arri"ing at a *ust

-



JUSTICE DELEON


decision o the case. Also, an unassigned error closelrelated to an error properl assigned or upon which thedetermination o the 5uestion raised ! error properlassigned is dependent, will !e considered ! the appellatecourt notwithstanding the ailure to assign it as error.

-. =t ma also !e o!ser"ed that under Sec. : o this Rule, theappellate court is authoriNed to consider a plain error,although it was not specifcall assigned ! the appellant,otherwise it would !e sacrifcing su!stance or technicalities.

2. The records show that respondent&s hus!and was leasingand operating a Calte) gasoline station in Fumaca, EueNon.Respondent testifed that her hus!and earned an annualincome o one million pesos. The trial court awardedrespondent the sum o P4-,-4-.;;, representing loss o earning capacit (P-6;,;;;.;;+ and actual damages(P1--,-4-.;; or uneral e)penses+, plus P-;,;;;.;; asmoral damages.

4. Dn appeal to the Court o Appeals, petitioner assigned aserror the award o damages ! the trial court on the groundthat it was !ased merel on suppositions and surmises, notthe admissions made ! respondent during the trial.

:. =n its /ecision, the Court o Appeals sustained the award !the trial court or loss o earning capacit o the deceasedSil"ino Tan, moral damages or his death, and actual

damages, although the amount o the latter award wasmodifed.

6. =n addition, the Court o Appeals correctl awardedtemperate damages in the amount o P1;,;;;.;; or thedamage caused on respondent&s motorccle. #nder Art.''' o the Ci"il Code, temperate damages Jma !ereco"ered when the court fnds that some pecuniar losshas !een su@ered !ut its amount cannot, rom the nature o the case, !e pro"ed with certaint.J The cost o the repair o the motorccle was praed or ! respondent in herComplaint.

1;. %urther, the Court o Appeals correctl awarded respondentci"il indemnit or the death o her hus!and, which has !eenf)ed ! current *urisprudence at P-;,;;;.;;.

11. =n fne, the Court o Appeals correctl awarded ci"il

indemnit or the death o respondent&s hus!and, temperatedamages, and moral damages or the phsical in*uriessustained ! respondent in addition to the damages granted! the trial court to respondent. The trial court o"erloo8edawarding the additional damages, which were praed or !respondent in her Amended Complaint.

1'.The appellate court is clothed with ample authorit tore"iew matters, e"en i the are not assigned as errors inthe appeal, i it fnds that their consideration is necessar inarri"ing at a *ust decision o the case.

R$%e 44& Sec' )L1:e3.% 3$%e7 0$:0t.+t1.% co@%1.+ce ?1t> 3e=$13e@e+t0 .0 to.e%%.+t90 :31e;

2HILI22INE COCONUT AUTHORITY /' CORONAINTERNATIONAL& INC'(Sete@:e3 & #

F.ct07Corona =nt&l sold communication and computer acilities to

PCA !ut the latter ailed to pa the !alance o the purchase price.3ence, Corona =nt&l fled a collection case against PCA with the EC

RTC. PCA as counterclaim sought rescission o the contract o sale.RTC ruled in a"or o Corona =nt&l.

PCA appealed to the CA wherein PCA fled its appellant&s!rie, which contained the ollowing O= included the SoC and So% *ustin case Sir as8s or the orm7

STAT??T D% T3? CAS? This is an appeal rom the trial courtIs /ecision, the dispositi"e

portion o which reads as ollows7HEREFORE, in "iew o all the oregoing premises, *udgment ishere! rendered01. Drdering the deendant to pa plainti@ the total sum o P6,;:',;2: representing the !alance o the contract price or

2



JUSTICE DELEON


Phase === o the pro*ect, the 1;Q retention or Phase =, == and === o the pro*ect, and the contract price or Phase =G o the pro*ect9'. Drdering the deendant to indemni plainti@ the sum e5ual to'Q o P6,;:',;2: up to ar ;, 166-, as actual and or damages9. Drdering the deendant to indemni plainti@ the sum e5ual to 1and Q o P6,;:',;2:.;; monthl rom ar ;, 166- up to the

time the ull amount is ull paid, as and ! wa o actualdamages9. The sum o P1 as and or attorneIs ee9 plus the costs o thesuit.

The counterclaim interposed ! the deendant is here! dismissedor lac8 o e"idence to sustain it. SD DR/?R?/.

STAT??T D% %ACTSDn ': Han 166', Appellant Philippine Coconut Authorit (PCA+entered into a contract with Appellee Corona =nternational=ncorporated (Corona+ or the suppl and deli"erBinstallation o complete communication acilitBsstem with related oceautomation hardware. r. Charles A"ila, then Administrator o PCA

signed the contract in his capacit as such while ?dgardo Sil"eriosigned in his capacit as President and Feneral anager o Corona.Dn 11 %e!. 166', Corona was paid the agreed mo!iliNation und inthe total amount o P2,4'4,-4.4. Pursuant to the Contract,Corona then had 1'; calendar das rom receipt o the o!iliNation%und or until Hune 11, 166' within which to complete the wor8s,thus7

JThe co"ered e5uipmentBacilities shall !e deli"ered andinstalled ! the Contractor in the placesBregions a specifedin the $id /ocuments within 1'; calendar das rom thedate o receipt o the o!iliNation %und mentioned in thesucceeding paragraph hereo, which shall includecommissioning o the e5uipmentBnetwor8 )))J

Dn ; arch 166', r. A"ila, in a Special Drder created an=nspection and Acceptance Committee responsi!le or theinspection, acceptance and proper documentation o all the unitsinstalled and ensure its conormit with the technical specifcationsas pro"ided or in the contract. The Committee was headed ! r.Paulino Raguindin. Dn ; April 166', r. Raguindin issued acertifcation (?)hi!it J':J+ that items deli"ered or Phase = underthe mentioned Contract has !een completed ! corona and dulaccepted ! the =nspection and Acceptance Committee. Dn ;2 a166', another certifcation (?)hi!it J'6J+ was issued ! r.Raguindin. This represented pament or Phase = o the pro*ect. Dn;: a 166', another certifcation o similar tenor was againissued ! r. Raguindin or which reason Corona was paid

P2,;-,411.4; (P2,4'4,-4. less 1;Q retention+ representing

pament or Phase == o the pro*ect. Pament Owas recei"ed on Hul, 166'. Dn '6 a 166', a similar certifcation (?)hi!it J;J+ wasissued ! r. Raguindin or which reason Corona was paidP-,41:,4.2; representing partial pament or Phase === o thepro*ect. Pament was recei"ed on Hul 1, 166'. Dn '6 Hul 166',then Administrator A"ila was replaced ! the =ncum!ent

Administrator, Girgilio /a"id. Dn '- Sept 166', /a"id engaged theser"ices o Teleconsultant =ncorporated or the purpose o e"aluating the wor8s o Corona. Dn 1: Han 166, /a"id inormedSil"erio, in a letter dated 1 Hanuar 166 that due to !latant!reach o the terms and conditions o the Contract and raud, PCAwas rescinding or annulling the contract. =nstead o responding,Corona fled the instant Complaint.

Corona =nt&l fled a otion to /ismiss the appeal or ailure tocompl with Sec 1, Rule o the RDC. The CA granted theT/ ruling that7

a. The SoC does not contain a clear and concise statement o thenature o the action, nor a summar o the proceedings, northe nature o the *udgment, nor an o the other mattersnecessar to an understanding o the nature o thecontro"ers, with page reerences to the record. PCA simpla"erred that <This is an appeal rom the trial courtIs /ecision,> and thereater merel 5uoted the dispositi"e portion o thesaid /ecision.

!. The So% ailed to asse"erate a clear and concise statement innarrati"e orm the acts admitted ! !oth parties and o thosein contro"ers, together with the su!stance o the proo relating thereto in sucient detail to ma8e it clearl intelligi!le,

with page reerences to the record.

PCA sought reconsideration !ut the same was denied.

I00$e7 D or ailure to strictl compl with Sec. 1, Rule PCAIs appeal should !e dismissed.

He%,7 D. PCA&s appellantIs !rie has su!stantiall complied withSec 1, Rule .

Statement of the CasePCA&s JStatement o the CaseJ does not strictl adhere to

the re5uirements o Rule. onetheless, we should not lose sight o 4



JUSTICE DELEON


the purpose o Sec 1(c+ which is to apprise the court as to thenature o the case !eore it. /espite its defciencies, the nature o the case is easil discerni!le rom a reading o the pleading.

Statement of Facts

Aside rom the lac8 o page reerence to the records, there isno ailure to compl with Sec 1(d+, Rule . The re5uirements laiddown in Sec 1, R are intended to aid the appellate court inarri"ing at a *ust and proper conclusion o the case. 3owe"er,despite its defciencies PCAIs appellantIs !rie is sucient in ormand su!stance as to apprise the appellate court o the essentialacts, nature o the case, the issues raised and the laws necessaror the disposition o the same.

Technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure,and not to suppress, su!stantial *ustice. A de"iation rom a rigidenorcement o the rules ma thus, !e allowed to attain the prime

o!*ecti"e or, ater all, the dispensation o *ustice is the core reasonor the e)istence o courts.

ALFONSO YUCHENGCO /' CA(Octo:e3 "& 6#

F.ct071. Muchengco fled a complaint with the a8ati RTC alleging

that respondents pu!lished in the anila Chronicle a serieso deamator articles against him, to wit7

(a+ that he was a <arcos cron> or a <arcos0RomualdeN cron9>

(!+ that he engaged in unsound and immoral !usinesspractices9

(c+ that he was an unair and uncaring emploer9(d+ that he induced RC$C to "iolate the pro"isions o the

Feneral $an8ing Act9(e+ that he induced others to diso!e the lawul orders o

the S?C9 and(+ that he was a <corporate raider.>

'. RTC ruled in a"or o Muchenco and ordered respondentsto pa damages.

. Respondents appealed to the CA and fled theirappellant&s !ries. Muchenco fled a otion to /ismissalleging non0compliance with the re5uired ormalities o theappellant&s !ries. The CA denied Muchenco&s T/ and R.

I00$e07 1. D the appeal should !e dismissed !ecause Muchengco

was not ser"ed ' copies o respondents Coiuto, et al.&s!rie as re5uired ! Sec. 4 o Rule .

'. D the appeal should !e dismissed !ecause theappellants& !ries were not in the prescri!ed siNe and did notha"e page reerences as re5uired ! Sec 1 (c+ and (d+ o Rule .

He%,71. o. Sec 4 o Rule re5uires the appellants to ser"e '

copies o the appellants& !rie to the appellee.a. 3owe"er, the ailure to ser"e the re5uired num!er o

copies does not automaticall result in the dismissal o the appeal. The CA has the discretion whether to dismissor not to dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to Sec 1 o Rule-;, <an appeal ma !e dismissed ! the Court o Appeals, on its own motion or on that o the appellee>upon the ground, among others, o <ailure o theappellant . . . to ser"e and fle the re5uired num!er o copies o his !rie,> within the reglementar period.aniestl, this pro"ision coners a power and does notimpose a dut. =t is director, not mandator.

'. o, respondents su!stantiall complied with the rules. Sec

1 (c+ U (d+ o Rule re5uires that the appellants& !rie should contain a clear statement o the case and acts withpage reerences to the record.!. The a!sence o page reerence is a ground or dismissal

o the appeal, howe"er, the same is not mandator !utdirector on the part o the CA. here the citationsound in the appellants& !rie could sucientl ena!lethe appellate court to locate e)peditiousl the portionso the record reerred to, there is su!stantial compliancewith the re5uirements o Sec 1 (c+ U (d+, Rule 2 o theRDC. Such determination was properl within the

appellate court&s discretion.:



JUSTICE DELEON


c. =n the instant case, the Appellants& $rie contained astatement o acts with reerences to ?)hi!its and TSsand attachments. The Appellants& $rie ma not ha"ereerred to the e)act pages o the records, howe"er, thesame is not atal to their cause since the reerences the

made ena!led the appellate court to e)peditiousl locatethe portions o the record reerred to.

d. The RDC was concei"ed and promulgated to set orthguidelines in the dispensation o *ustice, !ut not to !indand chain the hand that dispenses it, or otherwise,courts will !e mere sla"es to or ro!ots o technical rules,shorn o *udicial discretion. That is precisel wh courts,in rendering *ustice, ha"e alwas !een, as the in actought to !e, conscientiousl guided ! the norm that onthe !alance, technicalities ta8e a !ac8seat tosu!stanti"e rights, and not the other wa around.Circumspect lenienc will gi"e the appellant <the ullest

opportunit to esta!lish the merits o his complaintrather than to lose lie, li!ert, honor or propert ontechnicalities.>

e. The rules o procedure should !e "iewed as mere toolsdesigned to aid the courts in the speed, *ust andine)pensi"e determination o the cases !eore them.Li!eral construction o the rules and the pleadings is thecontrolling principle to e@ect su!stantial *ustice.

R$%e 5& Sec' (e#L1:e3.% 3$%e < %.te %1+ o; .e%%.+t90 :31e;

RE2UBLIC OF THE 2HILS /' FELI(Fe:3$.3 & #

F.ct07 The late ?lias =mperial was issued an Driginal Cert o Title !

the C%= o Al!a. The DCT was su!di"ided resulting in the issuanceo se"eral TCTs in the name o pri" resps. Repu!lic fled a complaintwith the trial court to declare the TCTs null and "oid and there"ersion o the lands co"ered ! the TCTs to the mass o the pu!licdomain on the ground that the same are oreshore land.

The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground thatthe land had !een declared not oreshore in a pre"ious cadastral

proceeding and an action to 5uiet title hence !inding on thego"ernment and such constitutes res *udicata.

Repu!lic appealed to the CA, in which the ollowing e"entshappened7

1. Repu!lic fled a notice o appeal and was re5uired to fle itsappellant&s !rie within - das rom receipt o the notice.

'. 1st e)tension7 /ue to the alleged hea" wor8load o thesolicitor assigned to the case, Repu!lic mo"ed or ane)tension o ; das within which to fle the appellant&s!rie. The CA granted the motion.

. 'nd e)tension7 Dn the same ground o continuing hea"pressure o wor8, Repu!lic fled its second motion ore)tension o ; das or until 11 August within which to flethe appellant&s !rie.

. rd e)tension7 Dn 11 Aug 1664, Repu!lic as8ed or a thirde)tension o ;das, or until 1; Septem!er 1664, within

which to fle appellant&s !rie citing the same ground o hea" pressure o wor8.

-. eanwhile, on ; Hul 1664, the CA issued a resolutionstating that the DSF is granted a LAST ?KT?S=D o ;das rom Hul 1', 1664, or until August 11, 1664, withinwhich to fle the appellant&s !rie. %ailure to fle said !rie within the said period will mean dismissal o the appeal.

2. Dn 1' August 1664, Repu!lic recei"ed a cop o theaoresaid resolution.

4. Dn '2 August 1664, petitioner fled an R and despite theCAs warning, reiterated its third motion or e)tension to flethe appellant&s !rie.

:. th e)tension7 Dn 1; Sept 1664, Repu!lic fled amaniestation and motion re5uesting another e)tension o -das (until 1- Sept 1664+ to fle appellant&s !rie, reasoningthat the !rie, although fnaliNed, was et to !e signed !the Solicitor Feneral.

6. Dn 1- Septem!er 1664, petitioner fled the re5uiredappellant&s !rie.

1;. Dn '6 Sept 1664, the CA denied petitioner&s appeal and Ror lac8 o merit and sustained its Resolution o ; Hul 1664dismissing the case or ailure to fle the appellant&s !rie within the e)tended period.

6



JUSTICE DELEON


3ence, Repu!lic fled this petition or re"iew on certiorarialleging that the dismissal o its appeal will result to the pre*udiceo, and irrepara!le in*ur to, pu!lic interest, as the Fo"ernmentwould lose its opportunit to reco"er what it !elie"es to !e non0registera!le lands o the pu!lic domain.

I00$e7 D the appeal should !e dismissed or ailure tofle the appellant&s !rie within the time prescri!ed ! the CA.

He%,7 o.

The SC has long o!ser"ed that the DSF regularl presentsmotions or e)tension o time to fle pleadings, ta8ing or grantedthe court&s lenienc in granting the same. =nstead o contri!uting tothe swit administration o *ustice as an instrumentalit o theState, the DSF contri!utes to needless delas in litigation./eadlines must !e respected and court warnings not ta8en lightl.

e"ertheless, the appeal should not ha"e !een dismissed.

The RDC was ormulated in order to promote *ust, speed,and ine)pensi"e disposition o e"er action or proceeding withoutsacrifcing su!stantial *ustice and e5uit considerations. The flingo appellant&s !rie in appeals is not a *urisdictional re5uirement.e"ertheless, an appeal ma !e dismissed ! the CA on its ownmotion or on that o the appellee upon ailure o the appellant toser"e and fle the re5uired num!er o copies o the !rie within thetime pro"ided.

= the appeal !rie cannot !e fled on time, e)tension o time

ma !e allowed pro"ided7(1+ there is good and sucient cause, and('+ the motion or e)tension is fled !eore the e)piration o the

time sought to !e e)tended. The court&s li!eralit on e)tensions notwithstanding, lawers

should ne"er presume that their motions or e)tension would !egranted as a matter o course or or the length o time sought9 theirconcession lies in the sound discretion o the Court e)ercised inaccordance with the attendant circumstances.

hat constitutes good and sucient cause that will meritsuspension o the rules is discretionar upon the court. The court

has the power to rela) or suspend the rules or to e)cept a caserom their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or whenthe purpose o *ustice re5uires it. Among the reasons which thecourt allowed in suspending application o the rules on fling anappeal !rie were the ollowing7

(1+ the cause or the dela was not entirel attri!uta!le to theault or negligence o the part a"ored ! the suspension o the rules9

('+ there was no o!*ection rom the State, and the !rie wasfled within the period re5uested9

(+ no material in*ur was su@ered ! the appellee ! reason o the dela in fling the !rie9

(+ the a8e lawer ailed to fle the !rie9(-+ appellant was represented ! counsel de ofcio9(2+ petitioner&s original counsel died9 and(4+ the preparation o the consolidated !rie in"ol"ed a

comparati"e stud o man e)hi!its.

=n the case at !ar, the need to determine once and or allwhether the lands su!*ect o Repu!lic&s re"ersion e@orts areoreshore lands constitutes good and sucient cause or rela)ingthe procedural rules and granting the third and ourth motions ore)tensions to fle appellant&s !rie. Repu!lic&s appeal presented ane)ceptional circumstance impressed with pu!lic interest which inthe Court&s discretion must !e gi"en due course.

DB2 / CA (66#Go+-..Ree0& J'

Doct31+e7

The granting o an e)tension, including the duration thereo,lies within the sound discretion o the court, to !e e)ercised inaccordance with the attendant circumstances o each case. Thecourt has the power to rela) or suspend the rules or to e)cept acase rom their operation when compelling circumstances sowarrant or when the purpose o *ustice re5uires it. 3owe"er, themo"ant is not *ustifed in assuming that the e)tension sought will!e granted, or that it will !e granted or the length o time sought.

Thus, it is the dut o the mo"ant or e)tension to e)ercise duediligence and inorm himsel as soon as possi!le o the appellatecourt&s action on his motion.

1;



JUSTICE DELEON


F.ct07• Present case is a petition or re"iew on certiorari

• Petitioners V /e"elopment $an8 o the Philippines (/$P+

Pri"ate respondents V ?n"ironmental A5uatics =nc. and Landand its corp. sister Land U Ser"ices anagement ?nterprises

=nc.9 and ario atute, the assignee o the right o redemption

1. The sister corporations e)ecuted a mortgage in a"or o /$Po"er ' fshing !oats and a parcel o land in ew ania tosecure their loan (P1,46',2;;.;;+ with /$P9 the mortgageannotated on the TCT o land

'. The loan was restructured thru a li5uidation loan o P',12,:;;.;;9 and su!se5uentl, P1,64,1;;.;;,P16;,4;;.;;, and P2:,4::.;;

. #na!le to pa, the mortgaged lot was oreclosed and sold !the RTC0 EC e)0ocio Sheri@ to /$P as the highest !idder9the certifcate o sale issued on /ecem!er 16, 166;

contained a 10ear period rom the date o registration orredemption

. Dn Hul '4, 1661, atute, thru counsel Att. Gitug, wrote/$P a letter e)pressing his desire to redeem the lot ! aanger&s chec8 upon receipt o the accurate fgures inwriting o the principal o!ligation with interests rom/ecem!er 16, 166; to August 16, 1661

-. =n repl, /$P, thru its $acolod !ranch, on August 12, 1661,re*ected a <piecemeal redemption> and rather as8ed thatthe total amount owed as per August 1 Statement !e paidi redemption !e allowed

2. The parties are in contention o the amount paa!le7a. /$P relies on ?D :1 which it contends to !urden atute

in the amount o P1:,;1,2-.11, the amount o loanoutstanding at the date o oreclosure

!. atute relies on Sec.- o Act 1- and Sec.'2 to ; o Rule 6, RDC which it contends !urdens him to pa onlP1,-;4,;;;.;;, the amount paid ! /$P at oreclosure

4. Respondents fled a complaint or redemption with the RTCwhich was granted and ruled that /$P ma claim defciencrom the sister corporations9 R ! /$P was denied thus itfled a otice o Appeal

:. Dn Hul 2, 166:, /$P recei"ed a notice to fle appellant&s!rie

6. Dn August ';, at the e)piration o period to fle !rie, /$Pas8ed or 1st e)tension o ; das to fle the same (or untilSept. 16+ in"o8ing its counsel&s hea" wor8load which theCA granted

1;.Dn Sept. '1 (as Sept. 16 was a Saturda+, /$P fled 'nd

e)tension (or until Dcto!er 16+ which was granted11. Dn Dct.16, /$P fled rd e)tension on the ground that its

lawer was stric8en with acute !ronchitis and was granteduntil o". : (or '; das+

1'. Dn o". 6 (as o". : was Sunda+, /$P fled th e)tensionor 1; das (or until o". 1:+ on the ground that its lawer

*ust reported !ac8 to wor8 and needed to time to completere"isions in the !rie

1. Dn o". 1:, e"en without court action on its th e)tension,/$P fled -th e)tension to add other re"isions

1. $ut on o". ';, pri"ate respondents fled a T/ismiss orailure to su!mit its appellant&s !rie

1-.Dn o". '4, /$P fled a <last otion or e)tension> oradditional 1; das (or until /ec. :+ on the ground that itscomputer !ro8e down

12.Dn /ec. :, /$P fled a <"er urgent motion> or a -0dae)tension (or until /ec. 1+ on the ground o the need to re0encode the !rie9 /$P claims that it recei"ed the CAresolution granting its th e)tension onl ater it sent out itsmessenger to fle the last motion or e)tension

14. %inall, on /ec. 1 (as /ec. 1 was a Sunda+, /$P fled its!rie

1:. Dn Han. '-, 1666, the CA denied /$P&s notice o appeal orailure to fle its appellant&s !rie9 R li8ewise denied

I00$e7 hether the CA was correct in dening /$P&s noticeo appeal or ailure to fle appellant&s !rie.

He%,7 D. Petition is granted9 petitioner&s appealreinstated and case is remanded to CA or urther proceedings.

1. =t is noted that the periods praed or in petitioner&s last motions or e)tension amounted to onl '- das and that all motions were fled within the e)tended period sought inthe immediatel preceding motion9 and that pri"aterespondents ha"e not alleged nor pro"en that the ha"e

11



JUSTICE DELEON


sustained an material in*ur or that their cause has !eenpre*udiced

'. =n a pre"ious case, Repu!lic ". =mperial (1666+ whichin"ol"ed 1:,1' s5uare meters o se"eral parcels o landwhich the go"ernment claims to !e o pu!lic domain, the SC

granted additional e)tensions o time to fle !rie sincepu!lic interest on the re"ersion e@orts o oreshore landsconstitutes good and sucient cause or rela)ing proceduralrules and granting the third and ourth motions or e)tension

. The ruling cited herein!eore is applica!le in this presentcase. = petitioner&s appeal is denied due course, ago"ernment institution could lose a great deal o moneo"er a mere technicalit.

. /istinction !etween7%ailure to fle a notice o appealwithin the reglementar period

%ailure to fle a !rie within theperiod granted ! the appellatecourt

•

Results in the ailure o theappellate court to ac5uire *urisdiction o"er the appealed

decision resulting in its!ecoming fnal and e)ecutorupon ailure o the appellantto mo"e or reconsideration

•

Results in the a!andonment othe appeal which could lead toits dismissal upon ailure tomo"e or its reconsideration,in which case the appealeddecision would also !ecomefnal and e)ecutor9 !ut priorthereto, the appellate courtshall ha"e o!tained

*urisdiction o the appealeddecision

-. =t is not contended that petitioner ailed to perect its appealwithin the reglementar period9 it merel ailed to fled its

appellant&s !rie within the last e)tended period accorded toit ! CA2. =n a considera!le num!er o cases, the Court has deemed it

ft to suspend its own rules or to e)empt a particular caserom its operation where the appellant ailed to perect itsappeal within the reglementar period, resulting in theappellate court&s ailure to o!tain *urisdiction o"er the case.

Thus, there is more leewa to e)empt a case rom thestrictures o procedural rules when the appellate court hasalread o!tained *urisdiction o"er the appealed case

R$%e 46

Ce3t1o3.31 ?1t> CA < ce3t1c.t1o+ ..1+0t ;o3$@ 0>o1+@$0t :e @.,e : et1t1o+e3 >1@0e%;

S.+to0 /' CA ("5#Be%%o01%%o& J'

Doct31+e7Fen. Rule7 (as applied in this case+ The certifcation, as

opposed to "erifcation, against orum shopping must !e made !petitioner himsel and not ! counsel !ecause o the personal8nowledge re5uired on whether an similar action in"ol"ing thesame issues was pre"iousl commenced in an other tri!unal oragenc9 e)ception7 it ma !e signed ! an authoriNed lawer whohas personal 8nowledge o the acts re5uired to !e disclosed

F.ct07

• Present petition is or re"iew on certiorari

• Petitioners V =smael Santos, Alredo Arce, and 3ilario Pastrana

• Pri"ate respondents V Pepsi Cola Products Phil. =nc. (Pepsi+,Luis LorenNo and %rederic8 /ael

1. Pepsi dismissed Santos, Arce and Pastrana due toredundanc o positions and streamlining o certain phsicaland sales distri!ution sstems to impro"e its warehousingecienc

'. 3owe"er, Pepsi created new positions with su!stantiallsame duties and responsi!ilities as those o the dismissedemploees

. Petitioners then fled a complaint or illegal dismissal7a. Petitioners allege that the new positions created !elie

their claim o redundanc and lac8 o notice to the /DL?at least 1 month !eore the intended termination isagainst the law (Art. ':, La!or Code+

!. c.'. Pepsi contends that the redundanc program wasmade in good aith and a management prerogati"e

. d. LA dismissed the complaint or lac8 o merit andruled that the 10month period was complied with

-. e. LRC ruled that ' months alread passed !eore/DL? was notifed, howe"er, it armed the dismissalholding that the notice re5uirement was dispensed with!ecause the petitioners ac8nowledged the e)istence o "alidcause or dismissal

1'



JUSTICE DELEON


2. . Petitioners then fled or certiorari with the CA !utdismissed the same or ailure to compl with proceduralre5uirements, one o which is the "erifcation andcertifcation !eing e)ecuted not ! petitioners themsel"es!ut ! their counsel

I00$e7 hether CA erred in fnding that there was ailure tocompl with the re5uirements o the Rules.

He%,7 D. The CA Resolution dismissing outright theappeal is armed.

1. =t is clear rom the a!o"e05uoted pro"ision that thecertifcation must !e made ! petitioner himsel and not !counsel since it is petitioner who is in the !est position to8now whether he has pre"iousl commenced an similaraction in"ol"ing the same issues in an other tri!unal oragenc

'. An e)ception to the rule Oas stated in item (1+ was held inBA Savings Bank v. Sia in that a certifcation ma !e signed! an authoriNed lawer who has personal 8nowledge o theacts re5uired to !e disclosed in such document

. 3owe"er, BA Savings Bank must !e distinguished rom thecase at !ar since the complainant therein was a corporation,and hence, a *uridical person and can onl act throughnatural persons9 thereore, phsical actions ma !eperormed on !ehal o the corporate entit onl !specifcall authoriNed indi"idual

. =n the present case, petitioners are all natural persons andthere is no showing o an reasona!le cause to *usti their

ailure to personall sign the certifcation9 hence, theargument o the petitioners that the e)ecuted a Specialower of Attorne! specifcall to authoriNe their counsel toe)ecute the certifcation on their !ehal is o noconse5uence !ecause no *ustifa!le reason e)ists or themto !e su!stituted

-. Another procedural Waw7 ailure to indicate the materialdates that would show the timeliness o the fling o appealwith the CA

2. Dn su!stantial issue7 the SC armed the fnding o CAdispensing with the 1 month period

R$%e 5& Sect1o+ (e#St31ct 3$%e < ;.1%$3e to %e .e%%.+t90 :31e; o+ t1@e 10 3o$+,;o3 ,10@100.%

S.ot /' CA ()#

2.3,o& J'F.ct07

The present petition is or certioraria. RTC con"icted To!ias and petitioner herein, Sa*ot, or estaa!. To!ias appealed the case with CA and fled appellant&s !rie

thereor which case is now pendingc. As or Sa*ot, he was re5uired ! CA to fle appellant&s !rie

within ;das rom receipt o notice although he wasgranted three (+ e)tensions to fle the same

d. CA e"entuall dismissed the appeal or ailure to fle !rie despite e)tensions granted9 CA denied R or !eing aprohi!ited pleading

I00$e7 hether CA gra"el a!used its discretion indismissing the appeal or ailure to fle !rieX

He%,7 D. The petition or certiorari to annul is dismissed.1. Petitioner was himsel guilt o neglect9 was aware o his

con"iction and o the re5uirement o fling an appellantIs!rie. 3is e)cuse that he relied on the ser"ices o his counseland that he was !us is <Wims>. <?5uall !us people ha"ein one wa or the other learned how to cope with the samepro!lem he had. ere we to accept his e)cuse, this Courtwould ha"e to open cases dismissed man ears ago on the

ground o counselIs neglect. =n man cases, the act is thatcounselIs negligence is matched ! his clientIs ownnegligence.>

'. e note that e"en during the trial o the estaa in the RTC,petitioner ne"er appeared in court e)cept during thearraignment. Thus, the court issued a warrant or his arrestand interpreted his non0appearance as <Wight.> PetitionerIslac8 o "igilance as ound ! the trial court in its decision isemphasiNed when his counsel in the present petition fled amotion to withdraw primaril on the ground o irreconcila!leproessional relationship !etween Att. %lorentino Temporaland petitioner. /espite petitionerIs repeated assurances

1



JUSTICE DELEON


relaed ! phone, letters and telegrams that he will meetwith Att. Temporal to ormulate the appellantIs !rie, hene"er did so. oreo"er, petitioner paid Att. TemporalIsproessional ees with chec8s drawn against closedaccounts.

GOVERN*ENT OF BELGIU* VS CA

F.ct071. A Complaint or specifc perormance o contract with

damages was fled ! petitioner against respondents #nifed%ield Corporation (#%C+, ariln F. Dng, Gictoria D. Ang,?dna C. Aluerte, ar8 /ennis D. Ang, and Al"in D. Ang, withthe RTC o a8ati Cit.

'. =n its Complaint, petitioner a"ers that it entered into aContract o Lease with respondent #%C, represented ! itsPresident and co0respondent, ariln F. Dng. $ "irtue o

the said contract, petitioner leased rom #%C #nits J$J andJ/,J with a gross area o 44 s5uare meters, more or less,and si) par8ing lots, at the Chatham 3ouse Condominium,located at the corner o Galero and 3errera Streets, SalcedoGillage, a8ati Cit (leased premises+, or a ma)imum termo our (+ ears !eginning 1 Dcto!er 1664.

. %or the use o the leased premises, petitioner agreed to pathe sum o P-,;,';.;;, as rentals or the frst two ears,rom 1 Dcto!er 1664 to ; Septem!er 1666, paa!le in ullupon the ocial turn0o"er o the leased premises9 and thesum o P24:,4:;.;;, as securit deposit, or a total amounto P2,1;6,;';.;;.O2 The Contract pro"ided or the pre0

termination option that ma !e e)ercised ! the lessee.. Dn or a!out ' Hune ';;;, three months prior to the

e)piration o the third ear o the lease, petitioner, throughcounsel, ser"ed ! personal ser"ice upon respondent #%C,through its President and co0respondent, ariln F. Dnginorming the corporation that petitioner was pre0terminating the Lease Contract e@ecti"e 1 Hul ';;;.

-. Considering that under the Contract o Lease, it could pre0terminate the lease ater the e)pir o the second0ear termwithout ha"ing to pa pre0termination penalties, petitioneralso re5uested the return or deli"er o the total sum o P1,;6,2;;.;;, representing its unused two months ad"ance

rentals or August and Septem!er ';;;, in the sum o P1,:';.;;, and the securit deposit in the sum o P24:,4:;.;;, within ort0f"e das ater the pre0terminationo the lease contract, or on 1- Septem!er ';;;.

2. Dn 1 Hul ';;;, petitioner "acated and surrendered the

leased premises to respondent #%C through the latterIsPresident and co0respondent ariln F. Dng ree o anoutstanding !ills or water, electricit, telephone and otherutilit charges or damages to said leased premises.

4. 3owe"er, respondents #%C and ariln F. Dng, in hercapacit as #%C President, totall ignored the demandsmade ! petitioner in its letter o ' Hune ';;; and,conse5uentl, ailed to return or deli"er the P1,;6,2;;.;;sought ! petitioner.

:. Petitioner claims that respondent #%C plainl committedraud in the perormance o its clear dut under paragraph'' o the Contract o Lease ! not returning petitionerIs

unused two months ad"ance rentals and securit depositdespite repeated demands thereor. 3ence, the indi"idualrespondents as directors o respondent #%C should !edeemed to ha"e willull and 8nowingl assented to apatentl unlawul act or are guilt o gross negligence or !adaith, as the case ma !e, in directing the a@airs o respondent #%C. #nder Section 1 o the Corporation Codeo the Philippines, the respondent directors must !e *ointland se"erall held lia!le together with respondent #%C.

6. Respondents fled their Answer with CompulsorCounterclaim on ' August ';;1. Thereater, pre0trial wasset. 3owe"er, respondents ailed to appear and, worse,

ailed to fle their pre0trial !rie, as re5uired ! the Rules o Court. The were thereore declared to ha"e wai"ed theirright to adduce e"idence on their !ehal. Respondents didnot see8 or a reconsideration o the aoresaid Drder9 hence,petitioner was allowed to present its e"idence e)0parte on16 Hune ';;' and 16 August ';;'.

1;. Dn : o"em!er ';;', the RTC rendered a /ecision in a"oro petitioner.

11. Respondents ele"ated the case on appeal to the Court o Appeals. The recei"ed a otice to %ile $rie rom the Courto Appeals. Respondents were una!le to compl with thisdirecti"e.

1



JUSTICE DELEON


1'. Petitioner thus fled with the Court o Appeals a otion to/ismiss Appeal o the respondents on the ground thatrespondentsI counsel recei"ed the otice to %ile $rie on 12

Hul ';; as shown ! the Registr Return Receipt and hadort0f"e (-+ das or until 1 Septem!er ';; to fle their

appellantsI !rie, !ut ailed to do so. o opposition to thesaid otion to /ismiss Appeal was fled ! respondents.either did the fle a motion or e)tension o time to fleappellantsI !rie.

1. Dn ; Septem!er ';;, the Court o Appeals issued aResolution which pro"ides that respondents had alreada!andoned and dismissed their appeal ! ailure to fleappellantIs !rie pursuant to Section 1(e+, Rule -; o theRules o Court.

1. Dn '4 Dcto!er ';;, respondents fled a otion orReconsideration o the oregoing Resolution stating thattheir ailure to fle their appellantsI !rie was due to their

counselIs inad"ertence, attaching their !rie thereto andpraing or its admission. RespondentsI counsel had used hisresidence as his mailing address and the domestic helpermight ha"e misplaced the notice to fle !rie9 hence,respondentsI counsel ailed to monitor the running o thereglementar period or the fling o the appellantsI !rie.

1-. Dn '4 o"em!er ';;, the CA granted the R and re5uiredrespondent to fle appellantIs !rie.

12.Petitioner then fled a otion or Reconsideration o theaore05uoted Resolution which the Court o Appeals denied.

I00$e7 D the CA acted with gra"e a!use o discretion in

granting the T on the ground o newl disco"ered e"idence!ased on Delia TicNonIs Ada"it.

He%,7 M?S. Respondents e"identl continued with their lac8 o caree"en when the fled an appeal with the Court o Appeals as shown! their not ha"ing fled an appellantsI !rie under thereglementar period. The purported inad"ertence o their counselcannot *usti a rela)ation o the rules. =t is the counselIsresponsi!ilit to see to it that he has esta!lished an ecientsstem to monitor the receipt o important notices and orders romthe courts. hile the omission can plausi!l 5uali as simplenegligence, it does not amount to gross negligence to call or the

e)ception to the ot0repeated rule that the negligence o counsel!inds the client. Respondents are, thus, !ound ! their counselIsnegligence.

%inall, it appears that respondents fnall JattachedJ their

$rie onl in their otion or Reconsideration fled on '4 Dcto!er';; in the Court o Appeals see8ing a reconsideration o theappellate courtIs Resolution o ; Septem!er ';;, dismissing theirappeal. The dela in the fling thereo, -4 das ater the e)pirationo the period to fle the same on 1 Septem!er ';;,was, indeed,unreasona!l long.

There were man cases cited in this case. 3ereIs a summaro it7

(1+ The general rule is or the Court o Appeals to dismiss anappeal when no appellantIs !rie is fled within thereglementar period prescri!ed ! the rules9

('+ The power conerred upon the Court o Appeals to dismissan appeal is discretionar and director and not ministerialor mandator9

(+ The ailure o an appellant to fle his !rie within thereglementar period does not ha"e the e@ect o causing theautomatic dismissal o the appeal9

(+ =n case o late fling, the appellate court has the power tostill allow the appeal9 howe"er, or the proper e)ercise o thecourtIs lenienc it is imperati"e that7a. the circumstances o!taining warrant the courtIs

li!eralit9!. that strong considerations o e5uit *usti an e)ception

to the procedural rule in the interest o su!stantial *ustice9

c. no material in*ur has !een su@ered ! the appellee !the dela9

d. there is no contention that the appelleesI cause waspre*udiced9

e. at least there is no motion to dismiss fled.(-+ =n case o dela, the lapse must !e or a reasona!le period9

and(2+ =nad"ertence o counsel cannot !e considered as an

ade5uate e)cuse as to call or the appellate courtIsindulgence e)cept7

1-



JUSTICE DELEON


a. where the rec8less or gross negligence o counseldepri"es the client o due process o law9

!. when application o the rule will result in outrightdepri"ation o the clientIs li!ert or propert9 or

c. where the interests o *ustice so re5uire.

R$%e 5& Sec' 5Fo3@ o; ,ec101o+ @e@o3.+,$@ ,ec101o+

FRANCISCO VS 2ER*SKUL

F.ct071. Dn a '1, 16:, the petitioner leased his apartment in

a8ati to the pri"ate respondent or a period o one ear orthe stipulated rental o P,;;;.;; a month. Pursuant to thelease contract, the pri"ate respondent deposited with thepetitioner the amount o P6,;;;.;; to answer or unpaid

rentals or an damage to the leased premises e)cept whencaused ! reasona!le wear and tear.

'. Dn a 1, 16:-, the pri"ate respondent "acated thepropert. 3e thereater re5uested the reund o his depositminus the sum o P1,;;;.;;, representing the rental or theadditional ten das o his occupanc ater the e)piration o the lease. The petitioner re*ected this re5uest. 3e said thelessee still owed him or other charges, including theelectricit and water !ills and the sum o P',-;;.;; orrepainting o the leased premises to restore them to theiroriginal condition.

. The pri"ate respondent sued in the eTC o a8ati. Ater the

su!mission o position papers ! the parties, a summar *udgment was rendered on Dcto!er 11, 16:-, sustaining the

complainant and holding that the repainting was notchargea!le to him. The deendant was ordered to pa theplainti@ the amount o P4,4-;.;;, representing the !alanceo the deposit ater deducting the water and electricitcharges. The plainti@ was also awarded the sum o P1,'-;.;; as attorneIs ees, plus the costs.

. This decision was appealed to the RTC o a8ati and wasarmed ! Hudge Hose C. de la Rama on Hanuar 1, 16:4.

This was done in a memorandum decision.

-. hen the deendant went to the Court o Appeals, hispetition or re"iew was denied on Septem!er '6, 16:4, as sotoo was his motion or reconsideration, on /ecem!er 1,16:4. 3e is now !eore us to ault the respondent court,principall or sustaining the memorandum decision o the

regional trial court. 3is contention is that it "iolates ArticleG===, Section 1 o the Constitution which pro"ides theollowing7

JSec. 1. o decision shall !e rendered ! an courtwithout e)pressing therein clearl and distinctl the actsand the law on which it is !ased.

o petition or re"iew or motion or reconsiderationo a decision o the court shall !e reused due course ordenied without stating the legal !asis thereor.J

2. According to the petitioner, the memorandum decisionrendered ! the regional trial court should !e re"o8ed ornon0compliance with the a!o"e05uoted constitutional

mandate. 3e as8s that the case !e remanded to the regionaltrial court or a ull !lown hearing on the merits, to !eollowed ! a decision stating therein clearl and distinctlthe acts and the law on which it is !ased. %or his part, thepri"ate respondent demurs. 3e *ustifes the memorandumdecision as authoriNed ! $.P. $lg. 1'6 and in"o8es theruling o this Court in Romero ". Court o Appeals, whichsustained the said law.

4. Section ; o $.P. $lg. 1'6 reads as ollows7<Sec. ;. %orm o decision in appealed cases. Y ?"erdecision or fnal resolution o a court in appealed cases shallclearl and distinctl state the fndings o act and the

conclusions o law on which it is !ased which ma !econtained in the decision or fnal resolution itsel, or adopted! reerence rom those set orth in the decision, order orresolution appealed rom.>

I00$e7 hether or not said decision complied with the law.

He%,7 M?S.

=n the case at !ar, we fnd that a *udgment was made ! themetropolitan trial court in compliance with the rule on summarprocedure. The decision consisted o three tpewritten pages,

12



JUSTICE DELEON


single space, and stated clearl and distinctl the acts and the lawon which it was !ased. =t was a concise and well0written decision,and a correct one to !oot, or which Hudge Paciano $. $alita is to !ecommended.

The pro!lem, though, as the petitioner sees it, is that inarming this *udgment, the regional trial court o a8ati rendereda mere memorandum decision that simpl adopted ! reerencethe fndings o act and law made ! Hudge $alita and thenconcluded, without saing more, that Jthere was no cogent reasonto distur! the same.J =t is claimed that as Hudge de la Rama did notma8e his own statement o the acts and the law as re5uired ! theConstitution, his memorandum decision was a total nullit.

=t is not reall correct to sa that the Court o Appeals didnot re"iew the memorandum decision o the regional trial courtwhich was the su!*ect o the petition or re"iew. A reading o its

own decision will show that it dealt e)tensi"el with thememorandum decision and discussed it at some length in the lighto the o!ser"ations Y and reser"ations Y o this Court in theRomero case. oreo"er, in re"iewing the decision o themetropolitan trial court, the Court o Appeals was actuallre"iewing the decision o the regional trial court, which hadincorporated ! reerence the earlier decision rendered ! Hudge$alita.

The 5uestion, o course, is whether such incorporation !reerence was a "alid act that e@ecti"el ele"ated the decision o the metropolitan trial court or e)amination ! the Court o

Appeals.

The distincti"e eatures o the memorandum decision are,frst, it is rendered ! an appellate court, and second, itincorporates ! reerence the fndings o act or the conclusions o law contained in the decision, order or ruling under re"iew. ostli8el, the purpose is to arm the decision, although it is notimpossi!le that the appro"al o the fndings o act ! the lowercourt ma lead to a di@erent conclusion o law ! the higher court.

At an rate, the reason or allowing the incorporation !reerence is e"identl to a"oid the cum!ersome reproduction o the

decision o the lower court, or portions thereo, in the decision o the higher court. The =dea is to a"oid ha"ing to repeat in the !odo the latter decision the fndings or conclusions o the lower courtsince the are !eing appro"ed or adopted anwa.

%or the incorporation ! reerence to !e allowed, it mustpro"ide or direct access to the acts and the law !eing adopted,which must !e contained in a statement attached to the saiddecision. =n other words, the memorandum decision authoriNedunder Section ; o $.P. $lg. 1'6 should actuall em!od thefndings o act and conclusions o law o the lower court in ananne) attached to and made an indispensa!le part o the decision.

UC2B /0 UNITED ALLOY

F.ct071. Dn August '4, ';;1, #nited Allo Philippines Corporation

(#niallo+ fled a Complaint or Jannulment andBorreormation o contract and damages, with praer or a writo preliminar in*unction or temporar restraining orderJagainst #nited Coconut Planters $an8 (#CP$+. TheComplaint was fled !eore the Regional Trial Court (RTC+ o Cagaan de Dro Cit.

'. Dn the same da, #CP$ fled a Complaint or a sum o mone with an application or preliminar attachmentagainst #niallo. This Complaint was fled !eore the RTC o a8ati Cit.

. Thereater, #CP$ mo"ed to dismiss the Complaint !eore theCagaan de Dro Cit RTC on the grounds o improper "enue,

orum shopping, litis pendentia, and !eing a harassment ornuisance suit. Dn Septem!er 1, ';;1, the RTC o Cagaande Dro Cit dismissed #niallo&s Complaint.

. $ "irtue o a otion or =mmediate ?)ecution fled ! #CP$,the same court issued an Drder o ?)ecution or the turno"erto the !an8 o the propert, su!*ect o the Contract soughtto !e annulled or reormed.

-. Dn Dcto!er 6, ';;1, #niallo fled a Petition or Certiorariand andamus !eore the Court o Appeals. Dn %e!ruar 1:,';;', the CA issued a rit o Preliminar =n*unction in a"oro the corporation. This issuance was later amended ! thesecond challenged Resolution o April , ';;'.

14



JUSTICE DELEON


I00$e07 1. hether it was proper or the Court o Appeals to ta8e

cogniNance o the Petition or Certiorari.'. hether the CA Resolution granting the preliminar

mandator in*unction was sucient in orm.

He%,71. The appellate court was correct in ta8ing cogniNance o

the petition or certiorari since what the petition was assailing wasthe Septem!er 1, ';;1 RTC Drder o ?)ecution, as well as therit o ?)ecution issued pursuant thereto. =t is contrar to what thepetitioner is saing that said petition pertained to the Septem!er1, ';;1 RTC Drder dismissing the Complaint.

Petitioner&s arguments are o@0tangent, !ecause the ocuson the Septem!er 1, ';;1 RTC Drder o dismissal and the ailure

o respondent to appeal the Drder. Clearl, howe"er, the Petition!eore us plainl see8s to annul and set aside the %e!ruar 1:,';;' CA Resolution, which does not address the Septem!er 1,';;1 Drder. The records show that the assailed Resolution merelpertained to the Septem!er 1, ';;1 RTC Drder o ?)ecution andthe rit o ?)ecution itsel.

Rule 2- o the Rules o Court is applica!le in the case at !ar.%urthermore, Section 1(+ o Rule 1'' o the Rules une5ui"ocallstates that no appeal ma !e ta8en rom an order o e)ecution.Rule 1 adds that in instances in which an order is not appeala!le,the aggrie"ed part&s recourse is a special ci"il action under Rule

2-. 3ence, an order o e)ecution, when issued with gra"e a!use o discretion amounting to lac8 or e)cess o *urisdiction, ma !e thesu!*ect o a petition or certiorari under Rule 2-.

'. An order granting a preliminar in*unction, whethermandator or prohi!itor, is interlocutor and unappeala!le.3owe"er, it ma !e challenged ! a petition or certiorari underRule 2- o the Rules o Court. $eing preliminar, such an order neednot strictl ollow Section - o Rule -1 re5uiring that Je"er decisionor fnal resolution o the court in appealed cases shall clearl anddistinctl state the fndings o act and conclusions o law on which

it is !ased ) ) ).J Thereore, the CA Resolution was sucient inorm and su!stance.

R$%e 5& Sec' 8

A%.+ Co%%ee& I+c' /' E+e3o ("#2o+e+te7 J' N.c>$3.D7 T>e .e.%1+ .3t 10 %e.%% 3e=$13e, to 1+,1c.te 1+ >10

:31e; .+ .001+@e+t o; e33o30& .+, o+% t>o0e .001+e, 0>.%%:e co+01,e3e, : t>e .e%%.te co$3t 1+ ,ec1,1+ t>e c.0e'Ho?e/e3& t>10 10 +ot ?1t>o$t =$.%1c.t1o+& ;o3 t>e .e%%.teco$3t 10 .cco3,e, . :3o., ,10c3et1o+.3 o?e3 to ?.1/e t>e%.c o; 3oe3 .001+@e+t o; e33o30 .+, to co+01,e3 e33o30

+ot .001+e,

2et1t1o+7 Petition or re"iew on certiorariF.ct07

1. Petitioner is an educational institution in A8lan whilerespondents were high school teachers o petitioner.'. Dn o"em!er 1-, 12 and 14, 166 and on Hanuar 2, 1; and

11, 166-, high school students o petitioner held massactions against the principal o the high school departmentat the pu!lic plaNa opposite the school. The demonstrationswere held with "alidl issued permits o the Dce o theaor

. Petitioner a"erred that the rallies were illegal stri8esinstigated ! respondents. Thus, ater an administrati"ein"estigation, respondents were dismissed romemploment

. Respondents fled a case or illegal dismissal againstpetitioner !eore the La!or Ar!iter alleging that what too8place was a peaceul assem!l

-. The LA a!sol"ed respondents and held petitioner guilt o illegal dismissal. LA ordered petitioner to pa respondents!ac8wages, 1th month pa, S=L, moral damages ande)emplar damages

2. Dn appeal howe"er, LRC re"ersed said decision holdingpetitioner no guilt o illegal dismissal !ut retained theaward or 1th month pa and S=L pa

4. $oth parties fled a R which was !oth denied or lac8 o merit

1:



JUSTICE DELEON


:. Petitioner fled a petition or certiorari !eore CA see8ing topartiall annul the decision o LRC insoar as it heldpetitioner lia!le to pa respondents& 1th month pa and S=L.CA howe"er held that LRC did not commit gra"e a!use o discretion in awarding respondents 1th month pa and S=L

pa. =t modifed the award and increased it6. Petitioner fled a R which was again denied. 3ence thispetition

I00$e7 D CA erred in arming the LRC decision andincreasing the monetar awards o 1th month pa and S=L paHe%,7 oR.t1o7

1. hether respondents recei"ed 1th month pa and S=L pa isa actual issue which does not all to the recogniNede)ceptions where the Supreme Court can re"iew such acts

'. Petitioner a"ers that it was improper or CA to increase the

monetar award on the su!*ect !enefts in a"or o respondents who did not fled an appeal rom the decision o LRC

. As a rule, a part who does not appeal rom the decisionma not o!tain an armati"e relie rom the appellatecourt other than what he has o!tained rom the lowertri!unal, i an, whose decision is !rought up on appeal. /ueprocess pre"ents the grant o additional awards to partieswho did not appeal

. As an e)ception, he ma assign an error where the purposeis to maintain the *udgment on other grounds, !ut he cannotsee8 modifcation or re"ersal o the *udgment or armati"e

relie unless he has also appealed or fled a separatepetition

-. =n this case, the CA is not precluded rom arming,re"ersing or modiing the decision o the LRC on thepropriet o pament o 1th month pa and S=L pa to therespondents. =t is the propriet o the award o these!enefts which were precisel the issues raised ! petitionerin its appeal !eore the said appellate court

2. Section :, Rule -1 o the Rules o Court pro"ides that onlthose issues assigned as errors will !e considered in theappealed decision, "iN.7

S?C. :. Euestions that ma !e decided. V o error whichdoes not a@ect the *urisdiction o"er the su!*ect matter orthe "alidit o the *udgment appealed rom or theproceedings therein will !e considered unless stated in theassignment o errors, or closel related to or dependent on

an assigned error and properl argued in the !rie, sa"e asthe court ma pass upon plain errors and clerical errors4. The appealing part is legall re5uired to indicate in his !rie

an assignment o errors, and onl those assigned shall !econsidered ! the appellate court in deciding the case.3owe"er, this is not without 5ualifcation, or the appellatecourt is accorded a !road discretionar power to wai"e thelac8 o proper assignment o errors and to consider errorsnot assigned

:. The CA ma re"erse the decision o the lower tri!unal on the!asis o grounds other than those raised as errors on appealin the ollowing instances7

a. Frounds not assigned as errors !ut a@ecting *urisdictiono"er the su!*ect matter9!. atters not assigned as errors on appeal !ut are

e"identl plain or clerical errors within contemplation o law9

c. atters not assigned as errors on appeal !utconsideration o which is necessar in arri"ing at a *ustdecision and complete resolution o the case or to ser"ethe interest o *ustice or to a"oid dispensing piecemeal

*ustice9d. atters not specifcall assigned as errors on appeal !ut

raised in the trial court and are matters o record ha"ing

some !earing on the issue su!mitted which the partiesailed to raise or which the lower court ignored9

e. atters not assigned as errors on appeal !ut closelrelated to an error assigned9 and

. atters not assigned as errors on appeal !ut uponwhich the determination o a 5uestion properl assigned,is dependent

6. The CA did not commit re"ersi!le error in increasing the saidawards. The present case alls under the rd e)ceptionenumerated a!o"e. A *ust, air and complete resolution o the case necessaril entails the correct computation o these !enefts. To a"oid dispensing piecemeal *ustice, the

16



JUSTICE DELEON


ull period o emploment o respondents was rightullconsidered ! the CA in the computation o the 1 th monthpa and the S=L pa

I00$e +ot 3.10e, o+ .e.% < c.++ot :e ,e.%t ?1t> : t>e CA+.% ..1+0t +o+.e.%1+ .3t

2NB /' R.:.t (5#2o+e+te7 C'J' D./1,e& J3'

D7 Sec' 8& ?>1c> 10 .+ .@e+,@e+t o; t>e ;o3@e3 Sec' " o; t>10 R$%e& +o? 1+c%$,e0 0o@e 0$:0t.+t1.% c>.+e0 1+ t>e

3$%e0 o+ .001+@e+t o; e33o30' T>e :.01c 3oce,$3.% 3$%e 10t>.t o+% e33o30 c%.1@e, .+, .001+e, : . .3t ?1%% :e

co+01,e3e, : t>e co$3t& excet e33o30 .ect1+ 1t0 $310,1ct1o+ o/e3 t>e 0$:ect @.tte3' To t>10 excet1o+ >.0

+o? :ee+ .,,e, e33o30 .ect1+ t>e /.%1,1t o; t>e

$,@e+t .e.%e, ;3o@ o3 t>e 3ocee,1+0 t>e3e1+

A%0o& e/e+ 1; t>e e33o3 co@%.1+e, o; : . .3t 10 +otex3e00% 0t.te, 1+ >10 .001+@e+t o; e33o30 :$t t>e 0.@e 10

c%o0e% 3e%.te, to o3 ,ee+,e+t o+ .+ .001+e, e33o3 .+,3oe3% .3$e, 1+ >10 :31e;& 0$c> e33o3 @. +o? :e

co+01,e3e, : t>e co$3t

2et1t1o+7 Petition or re"iew

F.ct071. Respondent spouses %rancisco and erced Ra!at (RA$ATS+

applied or a loan with P$ which granted the loan on Hanuar 1, 16:;

'. Ra!ats signed a credit agreement and e)ecuted a R? o"er1' parcels o land which is su!*ect to the interest rate o 14Q per annum plus the appropriate ser"ice charge andpenalt charge o Q per annum on an amount remainingunpaid or not renewed when due

. The amount due to P$ reached the aggregate amount o P,-4, :; as e"idenced ! the se"eral promissor notes allo which are due on arch 1, 16:

. The Ra!ats ailed to pa their outstanding !alance on duedate and ater demand, P$ fled a petition or e)tra*udicialoreclosure o the R?

-. A pu!lic auction was held and P$ won as the highest!idder. As the proceeds o the pu!lic auction were not

enough to satis the entire o!ligation, P$ sent a newdemand letters. #pon ailure o Ra!ats to compl with thedemand, P$ e"entuall fled on a -, 166' a complaintor sum o mone !eore RTC

2. The Ra!ats, on their answer, admitted the loan and theirdeault thereo !ut assailed the "alidit o the auction salesor want o notice to them !eore and ater the oreclosuresales. The also a"erred that the !id price was grosslinade5uate and that the accumulated interest and penaltcharges was so !ig due to P$&s scheme since theproperties were sold in 16:4 et P$ onl fled the instantcase in 166'

4. RTC dismissed the complaint and set aside the ' auctionsales o the mortgaged propert. Dnl P$ appealed romthe *udgment raising the issue o D RTC erred innulliing the auction sale on the ground that the !id was"er low and D RTC erred in ruling that Ra!ats are notlia!le to pa the interest and penalt charges

:. CA rendered a decision arming the trial court&s rulingnulliing the auction sales, !ut on a di@erent ground. CAdisco"ered that the Ra!ats did not actuall recei"e personalnotices concerning the oreclosure proceedings. 3ence, thecould not ha"e 8nown the said oreclosure sales

6. #nsatisfed, P$ seasona!l fled the present petition

I00$e7 D CA ma re"iew and pass upon the RTC&s fnding andconclusion on an issue which was ne"er raised on appeal andthereore had attained fnalitHe%,7 oR.t1o7

1. Section :, Rule -1 o the 1664 Rules o Ci"il Proceduree)pressl pro"ides7

S?C. :. Euestions that ma !e decided. 00 o error which doesnot a@ect the *urisdiction o"er the su!*ect matter or the "alidito the *udgment appealed rom or the proceedings therein will!e considered unless stated in the assignment o errors, or

';



JUSTICE DELEON


closel related to or dependent on an assigned error andproperl argued in the !rie, sa"e as the court pass upon plainerrors and clerical errors'. =n his !oo8, r. Hustice %lorenN /. Regalado commented on

this section, thus7

a. Sec. :, which is an amendment o the ormer Sec. 4 o this Rule, now includes some su!stantial changes in therules on assignment o errors. The !asic procedural ruleis that onl errors claimed and assigned ! a part will!e considered ! the court, e)cept errors a@ecting its

*urisdiction o"er the su!*ect matter. To this e)ceptionhas now !een added errors a@ecting the "alidit o the

*udgment appealed rom or the proceedings thereinAlso, e"en i the error complained o ! a part is note)pressl stated in his assignment o errors !ut thesame is closel related to or dependent on an assignederror and properl argued in his !rie, such error ma

now !e considered ! the court. These changes are o *urisprudential origin!. The procedure in the Supreme Court !eing generall the

same as that in the Court o Appeals, unless otherwiseindicated (see Secs. ' and , Rule -2+, it has !een heldthat the latter is clothed with ample authorit to re"iewmatters, e"en i the are not assigned as errors onappeal, i it fnds that their consideration is necessar inarri"ing at a *ust decision o the case. Also, anunassigned error closel related to an error properlassigned (PC=$ "s. CA, et al., L061, ar. 1:, 16::+, orupon which the determination o the 5uestion raised !

error properl assigned is dependent, will !e considered! the appellate court notwithstanding the ailure toassign it as error (Drtigas, Hr. "s. Luthansa FermanAirlines, L0':44, Hune ;, 164-9 Soco "s. ilitante, etal., F.R. o. -:621, Hune ':, 16:+

=t ma also !e o!ser"ed that under Sec. : o this Rule,the appellate court is authoriNed to consider a plainerror, although it was not specifcall assigned ! theappellant (/ilag "s. 3eirs o Resurreccion, 42 Phil. 26+,otherwise it would !e sacrifcing su!stance ortechnicalities

=t ma once !e noticed that the e)ceptions are or the!eneft o the appellant and not or the appellee

. P$, the sole appellant, ne"er raised the issue o lac8 o

personal notice to the RA$ATs. either is such issue closelrelated to or dependent on P$Is assigned error on appealnor is it an e)ception to Section : o Rule -1

. eedless to stress, the Court o Appeals erred in resol"ingP$&s appeal on the !asis o an issue which was not raisedon appeal and whose resolution thereon ! the trial courthas long !ecome frm and fnal against the part ad"ersela@ected ! the resolution

-. ?"en granting arguendo that the issue o personal noticema !e raised, still we cannot agree with the Court o Appeals. =n the frst place, in e)tra*udicial oreclosure sales,personal notice to the mortgagor is not necessar

2. Thus, the petition was granted the CA was directed todecide with reasona!le dispatch the case on the !asis o theissue raised ! P$

O+% e33o30 .001+e, 0>.%% :e co+01,e3e, : .e%%.te co$3t1+ ,ec1,1+ t>e c.0e < excet1o+& @.tte30 c%o0e% 3e%.te, to.+ e33o3 .001+e,

C.t>o%1c B10>o o; B.%.+. /' CA (46#2o+e+te7 J' He3@o0101@.& J3'

D7 T3$e& t>e .e.%1+ .3t 10 %e.%% 3e=$13e, to 1+,1c.te

1+ >10 :31e; .+ .001+@e+t o; e33o30& .+, o+% t>o0e.001+e, 0>.%% :e co+01,e3e, : t>e .e%%.te co$3t 1+

,ec1,1+ t>e c.0e' Ho?e/e3& e=$.%% 0ett%e, 1+ $3103$,e+ce10 t>e excet1o+ to t>10 e+e3.% 3$%e

2et1t1o+7 Petition or re"iewF.ct07

1. Roman Catholic Arch!ishop o anila (RCA+ was the ownero a parcel o land (Lot o. 1'4', $alanga Cadastre situatedin the $arrio o Puerto Ri"as, unicipalit o $alanga $ataanco"ered ! an DCT

'1



JUSTICE DELEON


'. The said church was succeeded ! Roman Catholic $ishop o San %ernando which was li8ewise succeeded ! Catholic$ishop o $alanga

. Dn August ', 162, ! "irtue o the authorit gi"en !RCA, the parish priest and administrator o the properties

o the church in unicipalit o $alanga e)ecuted a deed odonation co"ering an area portion o Lot o. 1'4' in a"or o Ana delos Rees and her heirs as a reward or her long andsatisactor ser"ice to the church

. Ana let the propert to her nephew, the respondent in thiscase which too8 possession o the propert in the concept o owner, !uilt his house and paid the ta)es due thereon

-. 3is possession was ne"er distur!ed until 6 ears laterwhen petitioner fled the instant complaint against himalleging that the deed o donation was "oid and that he"acate the said propert

2. Respondent fled a motion to dismiss the complaint on the

ground that the instant action is !arred ! the statute olimitations4. RTC ruled that the deed o donation was "oid since the

parish priest has no authorit to dispose the propert as heis merel the administrator and hence, respondent ne"erac5uired ownership o"er the propert

:. Respondent fled a petition or re"iew to CA contending thatthe lower court erred in not ruling on the issue oprescription which he raised. CA ruled in a"or o respondentholding that petitioner is !arred ! laches

6. Thus, petitioner fled the instant petition

I00$e7 D CA erred in appling the doctrine o laches consideringthat respondent did not assign such error on their appealHe%,7 oR.t1o7

1. True, the appealing part is legall re5uired to indicate in his!rie an assignment o errors, and onl those assigned shall!e considered ! the appellate court in deciding the case.3owe"er, e5uall settled in *urisprudence is the e)ception tothis general rule

'. e ha"e ruled in a num!er o cases that the appellate courtis accorded a !road discretionar power to wai"e the lac8 oproper assignment o errors and to consider errors not

assigned. =t is clothed with ample authorit to re"iew rulingse"en i the are not assigned as errors in the appeal

. =nasmuch as the Court o Appeals ma consider groundsother than those touched upon in the decision o the trialcourt and uphold the same on the !asis o such other

grounds, the Court o Appeals ma, with no less authorit,re"erse the decision o the trial court on the !asis ogrounds other than those raised as errors on appeal. eha"e applied this rule, as a matter o e)ception, in theollowing instances7

a. Frounds not assigned as errors !ut a@ecting *urisdictiono"er the su!*ect matter9

!. atters not assigned as errors on appeal !ut aree"identl plain or clerical errors within contemplation olaw9

c. atters not assigned as errors on appeal !ut

consideration o which is necessar in arri"ing at a *ustdecision and complete resolution o the case or to ser"ethe interest o *ustice or to a"oid dispensing piecemeal

*ustice9d. atters not specifcall assigned as errors on appeal !ut

raised in the trial court and are matters o record ha"ingsome !earing on the issue su!mitted which the partiesailed to raise or which the lower court ignored9

e. atters not assigned as errors on appeal !ut closelrelated to an error assigned9 and

. atters not assigned as errors on appeal !ut uponwhich the determination o a 5uestion properl assigned,

is dependent

. The instant contro"ers alls s5uarel under the e)ception tothe general rule that onl assigned errors ma !e passedupon ! the appellate court. A *ust, air and completeresolution o the present case necessitates the considerationand the application o the doctrine o laches which is not thesame as !ut is undou!tedl closel related to, the issue oprescription which was properl raised ! pri"aterespondent !eore the respondent Court o Appeals

''



JUSTICE DELEON


-. Laches1 means the ailure or neglect or an unreasona!leand une)plained length o time, to do that which, !e)ercising due diligence, could or should ha"e !een doneearlier9 it is negligence or omission to assert a right within areasona!le time, warranting the presumption that the part

entitled to assert it either has a!andoned or declined toassert it. =t has also !een defned as such neglect oromission to assert a right ta8en in con*unction with the lapseo time and other circumstances causing pre*udice to anad"erse part, as will operate as a !ar in e5uit

2. The time0honored rule anchored on pu!lic polic is thatrelie will !e denied to a litigant whose claim or demand has!ecome <stale>, or who has ac5uiesced or an unreasona!lelength o time, or who has not !een "igilant or who has slepton his rights either ! negligence, oll or inattention. =nother words, pu!lic polic re5uires, or the peace o societ,the discouragement o claims grown stale or non0assertion9

thus laches is an impediment to the assertion orenorcement o a right which has !ecome, under thecircumstances, ine5uita!le or unair to permit

4. Petitioner lost his right in this case ! reason o laches

R$%e 5I+ 3e7 Jo.=$1o+ Bo33o@eo A.". #$%&%'#'%() Feb *+) +##,

F.ct07• r $orromeo is not a lawer !ut has apparentl read some law

!oo8s and ostensi!l came to possess some superfcialawareness o a ew su!stanti"e legal principles and proceduralrules. %or some 12 ears not (since 164:+, he has !eeninstituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in "arious courts.

1 ?lements7 (1+ Conduct on the part o the deendant, or o one under whom heclaims, gi"ing rise to the situation complained o9('+ /ela in assertingcomplainantIs right ater he had 8nowledge o the deendantIs conduct and ater hehas an opportunit to sue9(+ Lac8 o 8nowledge or notice on the part o the deendant that the complainantwould assert the right on which he !ases his suit9 and(+ =n*ur or pre*udice to the deendant in the e"ent relie is accorded to thecomplainant

o =n the words o CH %ernando <with all the "alor o ignorance.>

• ?)pectedl, the results ha"e !een disastrous.

• =n the process, and possi!l in aid o his intermina!le and 5uiteunreasona!le resort to *udicial proceedings, he has seen ft tocompose and circulate man scurrilous statements against

courts, *udges and their emploees, as well as his ad"ersaries,or which he is now !eing called to account.

• $ecause o his ill0ad"ised incursions, !an8s came to ha"ecalamitous transactions !ecause o his ailure to compl withhis contractual commitments and his stu!!orn insistence onimposing his own terms and conditions or their ulflment.

These !an8s were7 Traders Roal $an8 (TR$+, #nited CoconutPlanters $an8 (#CP$+, and Securit $an8 and Trust Co (S$TC+.3e o!tained credit accommodations rom the !an8s or him andmem!ers o his amil, ailed to pa these o!ligations, andwhen demands came, he laid down his own terms which wereinconsistent with the contract.

ISSUE7D he is guilt o constructi"e contempt 000 M?S. 3erepeatedl committed contempt o"er time, despite warnings

RATIO7 CD#RT&S CDCL#S=D (There is a "er long part on thedetails o the cases+• 3e has stu!!ornl litigated issues alread declared to !e

without merit, o!stinatel closing his ees to the man rulingsrendered ad"ersel to him in man suits and proceedings,rulings which had !ecome fnal and e)ecutor, o!duratel andunreasona!l insisting on the application o his own indi"idual"ersion o the rules, ounded on nothing more than his personal(and 5uite erroneous+ reading o the Constitution and the law

• BASIC 2RINCI2LES GOVERNING THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION7paramount need to put an end to litigation at some point, andto la down defnite postulates concerning what is percei"ed to!e a growing predilection on the part o lawers and litigantso # Re.0o+ ;o3 co$3t0 J$,1c1.% H1e3.3c> Courts e)ist in e"er ci"iliNed societ or the settlement o

contro"ersies. =n e"er countr there is a more or lessesta!lished hierarchical organiNation o courts, and a moreor less comprehensi"e sstem o re"iew o *udgments andfnal orders o lower courts.

'



JUSTICE DELEON


The *udicial sstem in this *urisdiction allows or se"eralle"els o litigation, i.e., the presentation o e"idence ! theparties Y a trial or hearing in the frst instance Y as well asa re"iew o the *udgments o lower courts ! highertri!unals, generall ! consideration anew and "entilation o

the actual and legal issues through !ries or memoranda. The procedure or re"iew is f)ed ! law, and is in the "ernature o things, e)clusi"e to the courts.

o # 2.3.@o$+t Nee, to E+, L1t1.t1o+ .t So@e 2o1+t =t is the essence o the *udicial unction that litigation must

end. =n -heem of the hilippines v . Ferrer , a 1624decision, 48 a part Jma thin8 highl o his intellectualendowment. That is his pri"ilege. And he ma su@errustration at what he eels is othersI lac8 o it. This is hismisortune. Some such rame o mind, howe"er, should not!e allowed to harden into a !elie that he ma attac8 acourtIs decision in words calculated to *ettison the time0

honored aphorism that courts are the temples o right.Jo )# J$,@e+t0 o; SC not 3e/1e?.:%e The sound, salutar and sel0e"ident principle in most

*urisidiction is that *udgment o the highest tri!unal o theland ma DT !e re"iewed ! an other agenc, !ranch,department, or ocial o go"ernment. Dnce the SC hasspo8en, the matter must rest.

o 4# F1+.% ! Exec$to3 J$,@e+t0 o; %o?e3 co$3t0 +ot3e/1e?.:%e e/e+ : SC

=n respect o lower courts, ordinar remedies a"aila!le udnerthe law are TBR and appeal to either CA or SC,depending on whether 5uestions o !oth act and law, or o

law onl, are raised. ?)ceptionall, certiorari ma !ea"aila!le o in cases o ruling rendered in FA/AL?H.

3owe"er, should *udgments o lower courts !ecome fnaland e)ecutor !eore, or without, e)haustion o all recourseo appeal, the, too, !ecome in"iola!le, imper"ious tomodifcation. The ma no longer !e re"iewed e"en ! theSC.

• OS#ARM o A/==STRAT=G? C=G=LBCR==AL ACT=DAFA=ST H#/F?. ot su!stitute or appeal9 proscri!ed ! lawand logico 1. Common !asis o Complaints against *udges Z rendered

manifestl! unust udgments or interlocutor! order. This

would lead the D$ or TC to re"iew the decision anddetermine its correctness.

o '. ?)clusi"it o specifc procedures or correction o *udgments U orders

o . Dnl courts authoriNed, under f)ed rules to declare

*udgmentsBorders erroneous or un*ust.o . Contrar rule results in circuitousness and leads to a!surd

conse5uenceso -. Primordial re5uisites or administrati"e criminal

prosecution• H#/F?S #ST $? %R?? %RD =%L#?C? DR PR?SS#R?.

• $ecause he transgressed all these principles, $orromeo must !eheld lia!le

R$%e 5No @ot1o+ ;o3 exte+01o+ o; t1@e to %e @ot1o+ ;o3

3eco+01,e3.t1o+

Sec' o; A3.31.+ Re;o3@ /0' T3o1c.% Ho@e0/- +$'0*& 1 +$'&##) 2ul! $+) *((+

F.ct07• Carlos =[igo is the ormer registered owner o parcels o land

co"ered ! our CTCs located in $ago =nigo, Toril, /a"ao Cit.• =n 1641, =nigo and Tropical 3omes entered into a Hoint Genture

Agreement (HGA+ or the de"elopment o the propert into aresidential area, later 8nown as <$etter Li"ing Su!di"ision>o Tropical applied or the reclassifcation o the area rom

agricultural to residential. This was granted.• hen =nigo died, the heirs pursued the HGA with Tropical.

• =n 166;, /AR0/a"ao notifed Tropical that the propert would !eco"ered ! the CARP.

• =n 1661, /AR issued notices o ac5uisition to Tropical that aportion o the land would !e the su!*ect o compulsorac5uisition.

• This landholding is in present contro"ers.o /AR distri!uted landholding to the identifed armer0

!enefciaries.• OPARA/ Tropical fled a petition with the Pro"incial Agrarian

Reorm Ad*udicator (PARA/+ or the cancellation o the CLDA

'



JUSTICE DELEON


mainl on the ground that the landholding was outside theco"erage o the CARP.o Some bona 3de residents o the landholding were e)cluded

in the CLDA. The fled a motion or inter"ention while thepetition o Tropical was pending.

o

The A-A4 ruled in favour of Tropical) but the motion for intervention was denied.

• O/ARA$ The residents fled a otice o Appeal with /ARA$. The also fled a motion or a writ o preliminar prohi!itor and

mandator in*unction to stop Tropical rom demolishing thearmers0!enefciaries& houses, encing the propert, and postingguards to secure the area. The motion was granted ! /ARA$.o 4A-AB reversed the A-A4 ruling.

• OCA Tropical fled a petition or re"iew and motion or issuanceo a TRD with the CA. Tropical claimed that it would su@erirrepara!le in*ur i the e)ecution o the /ARA$ order was noten*oined.o CA granted the TRD.o =n 166:, CA decided in a"our o Tropical.o Bot> et1t1o+e30 .+, et1t1o+e3.e%%.+t0 %e, *R0'

hile the 1st motion was denied or ha"ing !een fled!eond the 1-d reglementar period, the 'nd R wasordered e)punged or the rollo, pursuant to the motion orpartial reconsideration fled ! Tropical. =n that motion, itwas alleged inter alia that petitioners0appellants are notparties to the case and that at no point in the whole legalprocess, rom the PARA/ to the CA, were the allowed tointer"ene.

• 3ence this case.

ISSUE7 D the petitions ma !e gi"en due course 000 D.1st, !ecause the R was not fled on time. 'nd, /ARA$ rulesdiscourage motion or inter"ention.

RATIO

• The procedural infrmities are replete and atal to !oth causes o action. %iled !eond the reglementar period to appeal.o Petitioners claim that the recei"ed the CA /ecision dated

Aug -, 166: on Aug 16. Thus, counting 1-d, their R shouldha"e !een fled on Sept . 3owe"er, what the fled instead

was a otion or ?)tension o Time praing or an additional1-d to fle their R.

o #nortunatel or petitioners, this Court has alread ruleds5uarel on the matter that +o 0$c> @ot1o+ ;o3exte+01o+ 0>.%% :e e+te3t.1+e,

o

=n 5abalu!as 6nterp v. 2apson) we ruled that the 1-d orappealing or or fling R cannot !e e)tended.o ?"en when petitioners argue that the Legal Assistance

/i"ision o the /AR is undermanned !ecause o asu!stantial num!er o its sta@ on ocial lea"e, the Courtstill did not change its ruling.

o e cannot go against what is settled in our *urisprudence !the mere e)pedient that there is not enough people to dothe wor8. The /AR must de"elop a sstem o procedurethat would ena!le it to compl with the reglementar period.

• /ARA$ rules discourage motion or inter"ention. %or a motionor inter"ention to !e entertained in /ARA$, ' re5uisites must

concur7 (1+ su!stantial right or interest in the case and ('+cannot !e ade5uatel pursued and protected in anotherproceeding. =n -epublic v. SB) the denial o a motion orinter"ention cannot !e re"iewed ! certiorari nor controlled !mandamus. 3ence, it !ehoo"es this Court to lea"e the denial o the motion or inter"ention to the wisdom o the PARA/.

• hile it is true that alitigation is not a game o technicalities, itis e5uall true that e"er case must !e prosecuted inaccordance with the prescri!ed procedure to ensure an orderland speed administration o *ustice.

R$%e 5)*ot1o+ ;o3 +e? t31.% @. :e %e, .;te3 @ot1o+ ;o33eco+01,e3.t1o+& :$t ?1t>1+ 5 ,.0

T1o+co /0' De$@./- +$$'+#) 7ct *') +###

%acts7• Hose Tiongco fled with RTC0=loilo a complaint or <damages

arising rom raudulent conspirac, pu!lic scandal, withpreliminar in*uction> against Att. arciana E. /eguma, Att.apoleon Pagtanac, =/C a*or Carmelo Tiongco, Hr. and

'-



JUSTICE DELEON


?strella Tiongco Mared. Hose Tiongco also pras or a preliminarwrit o mandator in*uction or deendants to "acate the houseon Lot 1;. 3e urther pras or damages.o Ater summons, Pagtanac fled his answer with counterclaim

o P1;;,;;; as moral damages and P-;,;;; as e)emplar

damages. The other deendants fled similar counterclaimswith "aring amount o damages.o The TC dismissed Tiongco&s complaint !ut granted the

counterclaims.• Tiongco fled an appeal !eore the CA. (Dne respondent also

appealed 5uestioning the inade5uac o the moral damagesgi"en to her. Onot "er important !ut *ust in case sir as8s+

• Tiongco claims that the *udgment ! the TC is contrar toe"idence and repugnant to law, and conse5uentl, the TC erredin awarding moral damages in a"our o deendants.

ISSUE7 D TC must !e re"ersed V D

RATIO7• Tiongco is aware that his complaint would not hold water. %irst,

he claimed that Tiongco Hr. and /eguma unlawullconederated, conspired and schemed to induce Mared toe)ecute and sign deeds o transer and documents. Second, heclains that T=ongco Hr and /eguma ha"e !een ornicating insidethe '0store house there! transorming the propert into ahouse o sin and creating pu!lic scandal. Pagtanac, A paolawer, was impleaded or ha"ing tolerated and condoned the

alleged immoralit.o The entire record o the case is !eret o e"idence to support

the allegations as to the e)istence o the a!o"e mentioneddeeds o transer and documents, much less their e)ecution.

o Thus, the CA armed the TC&s award o moral ande)emplar damages in a"our o all respondents. =t deleted,howe"er, the actual damages or lac8 o e"identiar supportand disallowed the grant o attorne&s ees or want o ratiocination.

• Tiongco fled an *R or the CA&s *udgment contending that itwas un*ust and contrar to law and *urisprudence.

Su!se5uentl, he fled a et1t1o+ ;o3 +e? t31.% on the groundo newl disco"ered e"idence.o The CA denied the R or lac8 o merit and the petition or

new trial or !eing fled out o time.• 3ence, this petition or re"iew on certiorari.

HELD7 D CA decision must !e re"ersed VD. (Armed !reduced amount o damages+

RATIO7

• Fenerall, denuncia falsa or malicious prosecution reers tounounded criminal actions. The term had alread !eene)panded to include unounded ci"il suits instituted to "e) andhumiliate deendants despite the a!sence o a cause o actionor pro!a!le cause.o alicious prosecution Z an action or damages !rought !

one against whom a criminal prosecution, ci"il suit, or other

legal proceeding has !een instituted maliciousl and withoutpro!a!le cause, ater the termination o such prosecution,suit, or other proceeding in a"or o the deendant therein.

o oral damages can !e reco"ered !ased on maliciousprosecution (Art. ''16 o the Ci"il Code+

o Art '1 o the Ci"il Code is an additional legal *ustifcation orthe award o moral damages. /enouncing persons orallegedl engaging in illicit se)ual a@airs and illegitimateacti"ities which undermined their good name and honor iscontrar to morals and good customs. 3ere, there is moralin*ur caused to deendants.

• hile we commiserate with the mental and emotional

tri!ulations su@ered ! /eguma and Pagtanac !ecause o theunonded accusations, we fnd that the amounts granted arestill excessive.

(THIS IS IT# 1t> 3e.3, to >10 et1t1o+ ;o3 +e? t31.%7o Tiongco insists that he seasona!l fled his petition or new

trial. 3e argues that his earlier R stopped the running o the period or ta8ing an appeal

SC7 Such interpretation is erroneous

(see Rule -, Sec ' and Rule -', Sec 1+ A+ *R& 0e.0o+.:%%e, 1+ t>e CA& ?1%% +ot +ece00.31% 3ec%$,e .+ *NT as

'2



JUSTICE DELEON


long as it was also fled on time. %urther, a denial o Rentitled the part who fled the R another 1-d to appeal V thesame period within which to fle T (resh period rule+.

I+ t>10 c.0e& T1o+co 3ece1/e, t>e co o; t>e CA,ec101o+ o+ A$ 5& "' He 0e.0o+.:% %e, >10 *R o+

A$ 4' He %e, . et1t1o+ ;o3 NT o+ Set 'o Considering the pro"isions pertinent to the su!*ect matter

and since Tiongco did not wait or the resolution o hisMR, the period within which he should ha"e fled his Tshould !e 1-d rom Aug -.

o Thus, his T fled on Sept 6 or -d ater recei"e o thedecision was ';d late.

e sustain thereore, the dismissal o the R and the petitionor T.

R$%e 56& Sec'

Ce3t1o3.31 %e, ?1t> CA et1t1o+ @$0t :e .cco@.+1e, :,$%1c.te o311+.% o3 ce3t1e, t3$e co o; .00.1%e, o3,e30

Re$:%1c /0' C.3@e% De/e%o@e+t I+c' (#

FACTS71. Respondent Carmel fled with the RTC a Complaint or

reco"er o possession with preliminar in*unction againstthe /epartment o ?ducation and the Caloocan Cit School$oard (School $oard+. Carmel sought to reco"er possessiono a parcel o land allegedl occupied ! the Pangarap?lementar School and the Pangarap 3igh School which

were esta!lished ! the /epartment o ?ducation.'. The /epartment o ?ducation fled a otion or ?)tension o

Time to %ile Answer as well as a aniestation with otion to/ismiss.

. Carmel fled a otion to /eclare /eendants in /eaultalleging that the period to answer had alread lapsed. Dnthe same da, the trial court granted the motion declaringthe /epartment o ?ducation and the School $oard indeault and allowing Carmel to present its e"idence e) parte(Drder 1+.

. =n an another Drder (Drder '+, the trial court declared theotion or ?)tension o Time to %ile Answer fled ! the

/epartment o ?ducation and the School $oard as moot andacademic. Thereater, in another Drder (Drder +, the trialcourt declared that no action shall !e ta8en on theaniestation with otion to /ismiss fled ! the/epartment o ?ducation and the School $oard considering

that the deendants ha"e alread !een declared in deaultand ha"e lost their standing in court.-. Su!se5uentl, the /epartment o ?ducation fled a otion

or Reconsideration o the Drders 1, ', and , and to LitDrder o /eault. Aside rom praing or the liting o theorder o deault, the /epartment o ?ducation li8ewisesought the dismissal o the case or "iolation o SupremeCourt Administrati"e Circular o. ;06 on orum shopping.

2. Carmel fled an Dpposition to the motion to dismiss.4. =n an Drder (Drder +, the trial court set aside its orders 1, ',

and , and lited the order o deault. The trial court,howe"er, denied the dismissal o the case.

:. The /epartment o ?ducation fled a aniestation withotion or Reconsideration o Drder .6. Su!se5uentl, the trial court issued another Drder (Drder -+

dening the /epartment o ?ducation&s motion orreconsideration.

1;. /issatisfed, the /epartment o ?ducation fled a petition orcertiorari under Rule 2- !eore the CA see8ing to annul thetrial court&s Drders U -.

11. The Court o Appeals dismissed the /epartment o ?ducation&s petition or certiorari and denied their motion toreconsider the same.

1'. 3ence, this Petition.

I00$e7 B the CA erred in dismissing the petition on theground that it was not accompanied ! certifed true copies o theassailed decision and resolution !ut onl duplicate originals.

He%,7 Ye0, the Court held that it was error or the Court o Appealsto dismiss the petition or certiorari fled ! the /epartment o ?ducation on the ground that it was accompanied ! mereduplicate originals instead o certifed true copies o the assailedorders.

'4



JUSTICE DELEON


The /epartment o ?ducation assails the dismissal o itspetition or certiorari ! the CA on the ground that copies o theDrders o the Regional Trial Court must !e certifed true copiesinstead o mere duplicate originals pursuant to Section 1, Rule 2- o the 1664 Rules o Ci"il Procedure. =t (/epartment o ?ducation+

argues that either duplicate originals or certifed true copies o theassailed *udgment, order or resolution is allowed under Rule 2' o the 1664 Rules which is the applica!le rule. eanwhile, Carmelmaintains that the petition or certiorari is go"erned ! Rule 2-which re5uires the su!mission o certifed true copies o theassailed orders.

This issue has !een settled in -osa 8ap aras and 9alente4! 8ap vs. 2udge :smael 7. Baldado and 2usto 4e 2esus araswherein it was held that7

<The fling o original actions or certiorari in

the Court o Appeals is go"erned ! Section , Rule2 o the 1664 Rules o Ci"il Procedure, whichre5uires that the petition or certiorari <!eaccompanied ! a clearl legi!le duplicate originalor certifed true cop o the *udgment, order,resolution, or ruling su!*ect thereo ) ) ).> The sameSection pro"ides that <the ailure o the petitioner tocompl with an o the oregoing re5uirements shall!e sucient ground or the dismissal o the petition.>

Carmel argues that the phrase <Oe)cept as otherwisepro"ided> ound in the second paragraph o Section ' o Rule 2

means that original actions or certiorari fled !eore the Court o Appeals are go"erned solel ! Rule 2- which states that <thepetition shall !e accompanied ! a certifed true cop o the

2 Sec. , Rule 2 0Contents and 3ling of petition; e<ect of non%

compliance with re=uirements. 0 ) ) ).<=t shall !e fled in se"en (4+clearl legi!le copies together with proo o ser"ice thereo on therespondent with the original cop intended or the court indicatedas such ! the petitioner, and shall !e accompanied ! a c%e.3%%e1:%e ,$%1c.te o311+.% o3 ce3t1e, t3$e co o; t>e

$,@e+t& o3,e3& 3e0o%$t1o+& o3 3$%1+ su!*ect thereo, suchmaterial portions o the record as are reerred to therein, and otherdocuments rele"ant or pertinent thereto. ))).>

*udgment, order or resolution su!*ect thereo ) ) ).> The Court heldthe phrase <Oe)cept as otherwise pro"ided> means e)actl what itsas, that is, e)cept as otherwise pro"ided in Rule 2, originalactions or certiorari shall !e go"erned ! Rule 2-. Contrar toCarmel&s contention, Rule 2 applies to original actions or

certiorari !ecause Section ' thereo e)pressl states that <OthisRule shall appl to original actions or certiorari, ) ) ).> That Rule2 applies to actions or certiorari fled !eore the Court o Appealscan hardl !e disputed.

Rule 2 should !e construed in relation to Rule 2- withoutrendering an o its pro"isions useless. This is e"ident in Section 2o Rule 2- which pro"ides that <Oin petitions or certiorari !eorethe Supreme Court and the Court o Appeals, the pro"ision o Section ', Rule -2, shall !e o!ser"ed.>

=n fne, the Court held that Rule 2 primaril go"erns

original actions or certiorari fled in the CA !ut Rule 2-generall ser"es to supplement the same. Rules 2 and 2-co0e)ist with each other and should !e construed so as togi"e e@ect to e"er pro"ision o !oth rules.

Lo+o /0' Sec3et.3 o; A3.31.+ Re;o3@ (8#

1. The spouses Fregorio and 3ilaria were the owners o aparcel o agricultural land, upon which the li8ewise erectedtheir residence. Li"ing with them on the su!*ect propertwere Girgilio, Fregorio&s son ! another woman, and 1-

tenants.'. hen Fregorio died, 3ilaria administered the su!*ectpropert with Girgilio. Sometime later, 3ilaria and Girgilioe)ecuted a /eed o Sale o"er the su!*ect propert in a"oro /eleste.

. Later, oel was appointed as the regular administrator o the *oint estate.

. The su!*ect propert was included in the list o assets o the *oint estate. 3owe"er, oel could not ta8e possession o the

su!*ect propert since it was alread in /eleste&spossession. Thus, oel fled !eore the C%= an action against

':



JUSTICE DELEON


/eleste or the re"ersion o title o"er the su!*ect propert tothe ?state, doc8eted as Ci"il Case o. 26:.

-. hile Ci"il Case o. 26: was pending, Presidential /ecreeo. '4 was issued, which mandated that tenanted rice andcorn lands !e !rought under the Dperation Land Transer

Program and !e awarded to armer !enefciaries. =naccordance therewith, the su!*ect propert was placedunder the Dperation Land Transer Program.

2. Thereater, the /epartment o Agrarian Reorm (/AR+ issuedCertifcates o Land Transer (CLTs+ in the names o hereinpri"ate respondents, the tenants and actual culti"ators o the su!*ect propert. The CLTs were registered in 16:2.

4. Su!se5uentl, in ';;1, Driginal Certifcates o Title (DCTs+and ?mancipation Patents (?Ps+ were issued in a"or o thepri"ate respondents o"er their respecti"e portions o thesu!*ect propert.

:. =n ';;', the 3eirs o /eleste, fled with the /epartment o

Agrarian Reorm Ad*udication $oard (/ARA$+ a petitionsee8ing to nulli pri"ate respondents& ?Ps.6. The Pro"incial Agrarian Reorm Ad*udicator (PARA/+

rendered a /ecision declaring that the ?Ps were null and"oid in "iew o the pending issues o ownership and thesu!se5uent reclassifcation o the su!*ect propert into aresidentialBcommercial land.

1;. Dn appeal, the /ARA$ re"ersed the ruling o the PARA/. The3eirs o /eleste fled a otion or Reconsideration o theaorementioned /ecision, !ut the otion was denied ! the/ARA$.

11. The 3eirs o /eleste thereater fled a Petition or Re"iew

(CA0F.R. SP o. :-41+ with the Court o Appealschallenging the /ecision and Resolution in /ARA$ Case.3owe"er, the Petition was denied ! the Court o Appeals.

The otion or Reconsideration o the 3eirs o /eleste wasli8ewise denied ! the appellate court or !eing pro orma.

1'. /uring the pendenc o CA0F.R. SP o. :-41 !eore theCourt o Appeals, a Petition or Prohi!ition, /eclaration o ullit o ?mancipation Patents =ssued ! /AR and theCorresponding ODriginal Certifcates o Title =ssued ! theOLand Registration Authorit, =n*unction with Praer or

Temporar Restraining Drder (TRD+ was fled in ';;- !

herein petitioners 3eirs o Sofa anaman Lono, et al. withthe Court o Appeals, doc8eted as CA0F.R. SP o. ;;2-.

1. Petitioners are more than 1'; indi"iduals who claim to !ethe descendants o %ulgencio anaman, Fregorio&s !rother,and who collecti"el assert their right to a share in

Fregorio&s estate. Arguing that the were depri"ed o theirinheritance ! "irtue o the improper issuance o the ?Ps topri"ate respondents without notice to them, petitionerspraed that a TRD !e orthwith issued, prohi!iting the /ARSecretar, the Land Registration Authorit (LRA+, the /ARA$,the Land $an8 o the Philippines (L$P+, as well as the RTC,$ranch o =ligan Cit, rom enorcing the ?Ps and DCTs inthe names o pri"ate respondents until CA0F.R. SP o.;;2- is resol"ed. Petitioners urther praed that *udgment!e su!se5uentl rendered declaring the said ?Ps and theDCTs null and "oid.

1. =n a Resolution, the Court o Appeals dismissed the Petition

in CA0F.R. SP o. ;;2- on, among others, the ground thatthe Anne)es attached to the petition are not duplicateoriginals or certifed true copies in "iolation to Section ,Rule 2 o the Rules o Court, hence, sucient ground orthe dismissal o the petition.

1-.Aggrie"ed, petitioners now come to this Court "ia thepresent Petition or Re"iew

I00$e7 B the CA was correct in dismissing outright petitioners&Petition or ailure to attach the duplicate originals or certifed truecopies o some o their anne)es, in "iolation o Section , Rule 2 o the Rules o Court.

He%,7 Ye0, the Court o Appeals was mista8en in this regard.

=t should !e recalled that petitioners initiated !eore theCourt o Appeals, in its original *urisdiction, a Petition orProhi!ition.

Section o Rule 2 DOES NOT re5uire that all supportingpapers and documents accompaning a petition !e duplicateoriginals or certifed true copies. hat it e)plicitl directs is that allpetitions originall fled !eore the Court o Appeals shall !eaccompanied ! a clearl legi!le duplicate original or certifed true

'6



JUSTICE DELEON


cop o the *udgment, order, resolution or ruling su!*ect thereo.Similarl, under Rule 2- go"erning the remedies o certiorari,prohi!ition and mandamus, petitions or the same need to !eaccompanied onl ! duplicate originals or certifed true copies o the 5uestioned *udgment, order or resolution. Dther rele"ant

documents and pleadings attached to such petitions ma !e meremachine copies thereo.

As to petitioners& Petition or Prohi!ition in CA0F.R. SP o.;;2-, the attached anne)es that were not duplicate originals orcertifed true copies, were mere supporting documents andpleadings reerred to in the petition and were not themsel"es the

*udgments, orders or resolutions !eing challenged in said Petition.

At an rate, petitioners were a!le to attach certifed true copies o these anne)es to their otion or Reconsideration o the dismissalo their Petition.

;

apprac rules 44 to 56 v3 (final)

Documents