80
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 131282 January 4, 2002 GABRIEL L. DUERO, petitioner, vs. HON.COURT OF APPEALS, and BERNARDO A. ERADEL, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: This petition for certiorari assails the Decisionl dated September 17, 1997, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP No.. 2340- UDK, entitled Bernardo Eradel vs. Non. Ermelino G. Andal, setting aside all proceedings in Civil Case No.1075, Gabriel L. Duero vs. Bernardo Eradel, before the Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court of Tandag, Surigao del Sur . The pertinent facts are as follow. Sometime in 1988, according to petitioner, private respondent Bemardo Eradel 2 entered and occupied petitioner's land covered by Tax Declaration No. A-16-13-302, located in Baras, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur. As shown in the tax declaration, the land had an assessed value of P5,240. When petitioner politely informed private respondent that the land was his and requested the latter to vacate the land, private respondent refused, but instead threatened him with bodily harm. Despite repeated demands, private respondent remained steadfast in his refusal to leave the land. On June 16, 1995, petitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages and Attorney's Fees against private respondent and two others, namely, Apolinario and Inocencio Ruena. Petitioner appended to the complaint the aforementioned tax declaration. The counsel of the Ruenas asked for extension to file their Answer and was given until July 18, 1995. Meanwhile, petitioner and the, Ruenas executed a compromise agreement, which became the trial court's basis for a partial judgment rendered on January 12, 1996. In this agreement, the Ruenas through their counsel, Atty. Eusebio Avila, entered into a Compromise Agreement with herein petitioner, Gabriel Duero. Inter alia, the agreement stated that the Ruenas recognized and bound themselves to respect the ownership and possession of Duero. 3 Herein private respondent Eradel was not a party to the agreement, and he was declared in default for failure to file his answer to the complaint. 4 Petitioner presented his evidence ex parte on February 13, 1996. On May 8, 1996, judgment was rendered in his favor, and private respondent was ordered to peacefully vacate and turn over Lot No.1065 Cad. 537-D to petitioner; pay petitioner P2,000 annual rental from 1988 up the time he vacates the land, and P5,000 as attorney's fees and the cost of the suit. 5 Private respondent received a copy of the decision on May 25, 1996. On June 10, 1996, private respondent filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging that he has been occupying the land as a tenant of Artemio Laurente, Sr., since 1958. He explained that he turned over the complaint and summons to Laurente in the honest belief that as landlord, the latter had a better right to the land and was responsible to defend any adverse claim on it. However, the trial court denied the motion for new trial.1âwphi1.nêt Meanwhile, RED Conflict Case No.1029, an administrative case between petitioner and applicant-contestants Romeo, Artemio and Jury Laurente, remained pending with the Office of the Regional Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Davao City. Eventually, it was forwarded to the DENR Regional Office in Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur . On July 24, 1996, private respondent filed before the RTC a Petition for Relief from Judgment, reiterating the same allegation in his Motion for New Trial. He averred that unless there is a determination on who owned the land, he could not be made to vacate the land. He also averred that the judgment of the trial court was void inasmuch as the heirs of Artemio Laurente, Sr., who are indispensable parties, were not impleaded. On September 24, 1996, Josephine, Ana Soledad and Virginia, all surnamed Laurente, grandchildren of Artemio who were claiming ownership of the land, filed a Motion for Intervention. The RTC denied the motion.

Jurisdiction Cases Full Text

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Jurisdiction Cases Full Text

Citation preview

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 131282 January 4, 2002GABRIEL L. UERO, petitioner, vs.!ON.COURT O" APPEALS, an# BERNARO A. ERAEL, respondents.$UISUMBING, J.:his petition for certiorari assails the Decisionl dated Septe!ber "#, "$$#, of the Court of %ppeals in C%&'.R. No. SP No.. ()*+& ,D-, entitled Bernardo Eradel vs. Non. Ermelino G. Andal, settin. aside all proceedin.s in Civil Case No."+#/, Gabriel L. Duero vs. Bernardo Eradel, before the 0ranch (# of the Re.ional rial Court of anda., Suri.ao del Sur .he pertinent facts are as follo1.So!eti!e in "$22, accordin. to petitioner, private respondent0e!ardo Eradel( entered and occupied petitioner3s land covered b4 a5 Declaration No. %&"6&")&)+(, located in 0aras, San Mi.uel, Suri.ao del Sur. %s sho1n in the ta5 declaration, the land had an assessed value of P/,(*+. 7henpetitioner politel4 infor!ed private respondent that the land 1as his and re8uested the latter to vacate the land, private respondent refused, but instead threatened hi! 1ith bodil4 har!. Despite repeated de!ands, private respondent re!ained steadfast in his refusal to leave the land.On 9une "6, "$$/, petitioner filed before the RC a co!plaintfor Recover4 of Possession and O1nership 1ith Da!a.es and %ttorne43s :ees a.ainst private respondent and t1o others, na!el4, %polinario and Inocencio Ruena. Petitioner appended to the co!plaint the afore!entioned ta5 declaration. he counsel of the Ruenas as;ed for e5tension to file their %ns1er and 1as .iven until 9ul4 "2, "$$/. Mean1hile, petitioner and the, Ruenas e5ecuted a co!pro!ise a.ree!ent, 1hich beca!e the trial court3s basis for a partial O: %?? >E :ORE'OIN', the Petition is 'R%NED. %ll proceedin.s in C'abriel ?. Duero vs. 0ernardo Eradel, et. al. Civil Case "+#/C filed in the Court a 8uo, includin. its Decision, %nne5CEC of the petition, and its Orders and 7rit of E5ecution and the turn over of the propert4 to the Private Respondent b4 the Sheriff of the Court a 8uo, are declared null and void and hereb4 SE %SIDE, No pronounce!ent as to costs.SO ORDERED.6Petitioner no1 co!es before this Court, alle.in. that the Court of %ppeals acted 1ith .rave abuse of discretion a!ountin. to lac; or in e5cess of E ?O7ER CO,R >%S NO 9,RISDICION OVER >E S,09EC M% ER O: >E C%SE.II...PRIV%E RESPONDEN 7%S NO >ERE0D ESOPPED :ROM E,ESIONIN' >E 9,RISDICION O: >E ?O7ER CO,R EVEN %:ER I S,CCESS:,??D SO,'> %::IRM%IVE RE?IE: >ERE:ROM.III...>E :%l?,RE O: PRIV%E RESPONDEN O :I?E >IS %NS7ER IS 9,SI:IED. #he !ain issue before us is 1hether the Court of %ppeals .ravel4 abused its discretion 1hen it held that the !unicipal trial court had S,PREME CO,R CIRC,?%R NO. (2&$". MORE, PEIIONER S,0SEE,EN?D S,0MIED D,RIN' >E PENDENCD O: >E PROCEEDIN'S % D,?D %,>ENIC%ED CERI:IC%E O: NON&:OR,M S>OPPIN' 7>IC> >E >IMSE?: SI'NED %ND ELEC,ED IN >E ,NIED S%ES.0. PEIIONER >%S S,0S%NI%??D COMP?IED7I> SECION ), R,?E 6 O: >E REVISED INERN%? R,?ES O: >E CO,R O: %PPE%?S. MORE, PEIIONER S,0SEE,EN?D S,0MIED D,RIN' >E PENDENCD O: >E PROCEEDIN'S COPIES O: >E RE?EV%N DOC,MENS IN >E C%SES 0E?O7.C. PEIIONER >%S % MERIORIO,S %PPE%?, %ND >E S%NDS O ?OSE S,0S%NI%? PROPERD I: >E %PPE%? IS NO 'IVEN D,E CO,RSE. >E R,?ES O: PROCED,RE M,S 0E ?I0ER%??D CONSR,ED O DO S,0S%NI%? 9,SICE.II.RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S 'R%VE?D ERRED IN NO R,?IN' >% %?? >E E?EMENS O: ,N?%7:,? DE%INER %RE PRESEN IN >E C%SE % 0%R.III.RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S ERRED IN NO R,?IN' >% >E RC M%NI?%, 0R%NC> *#, COMMIED REVERSI0?E ERROR IN %::IRMIN' >E :INDIN' O: MC M%NI?%, 0R%NC> (6, >% PRIV%E RESPONDENS C%NNO 0E E9ECED :ROM >E S,09EC PROPERD 7I>O, VIO?%IN' >EIR SEC,RID O: EN,RE EVEN I: >E ERM O: >E ?E%SE IS MON>&O&MON> 7>IC> ELPIRES % >E END O: E%C> MON>. IN >IS RE'%RD,%. RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S S>O,?D >%VE R,?ED >% >E RC M%NI?% COMMIED REVERSI0?E ERROR IN NO R,?IN' >% EN%NS ,NDER P.D. "/"# M%D 0E EVICED :OR NON&P%DMEN O: REN, ERMIN%ION O: ?E%SE OR O>ER 'RO,NDS :OR E9ECMEN.0. RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S S>O,?D >%VE R,?ED >% >E RC M%NI?% COMMIED REVERSI0?E ERROR IN NO R,?IN' >% >E %??E'ED CPRIORID RI'> O 0,D >E ?O >ED OCC,PDC DOES NO %PP?D 7>ERE >E ?%NDO7NER DOES NO INEND O SE?? >E S,09EC PROPERD, %S IN >E C%SE % 0%R.C. RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S S>O,?D >%VE R,?ED >% >E RC M%NI?% COMMIED REVERSI0?E ERROR IN R,?IN' >% >E S,09EC PROPERD IS ?OC%ED 7I>IN % MON%? IMPROVEMEN %RE% OR %PD.D. RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S S>O,?D >%VE R,?ED >% >E RC M%NI?% COMMIED REVERSI0?E ERROR IN NO R,?IN' >% PRIV%E RESPONDENSK NON&COMP?I%NCE 7I> >E CONDIIONS ,NDER >E ?%7 RES,? IN >E 7%IVER O: PROECION %'%INS EVICION.E. RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S S>O,?D >%VE R,?ED >% >E RC M%NI?% COMMIED REVERSI0?E ERROR IN NO R,?IN' >% PRIV%E RESPONDENS C%NNO0E ENI?ED O PROECION ,NDER P.D. (+"6SINCE >E 'OVERNMEN >%S NO INENION O: %CE,IRIN' >E S,09EC PROPERD.:. RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S S>O,?D >%VE R,?ED >% >E RC M%NI?% COMMIED REVERSI0?E ERROR IN :INDIN' >% >ERE IS %N ON&'OIN' NE'OI%ION :OR >E S%?E O: >E S,09EC PROPERD %ND >% I RENDERS >E EVICION O: PRIV%E RESPONDENS PREM%,RE.'. RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S S>O,?D >%VE R,?ED >% >E RC M%NI?% COMMIED REVERSI0?E ERROR IN NO R,?IN' >% >E %??E'ED C%SE :OR CONSI'N%ION DOES NO 0%R >E EVICION O: PRIV%E RESPONDENS.IV.RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S 'R%VE?D ERRED IN NO :INDIN' >% RESPONDENS S>O,?D P%D PEIIONER % RE%SON%0?E COMPENS%ION :OR >EIR ,SE %ND OCC,P%NCD O: >E S,09EC PROPERD IN >E %MO,N O: % ?E%S P"+,+++.++ PER MON> :ROM >E D%E >ED ?%S P%ID REN ,NI? >E IME >ED %C,%??D V%C%E >E S%ME, 7I> ?E'%? INERES % >E M%LIM,M R%E %??O7ED 0D ?%7 ,NI? P%ID.V.RESPONDEN CO,R O: %PPE%?S 'R%VE?D ERRED IN NO :INDIN' >% RESPONDENS S>O,?D P%D PEIIONER %ORNEDKS :EES %ND ELPENSES O: ?II'%ION O: % ?E%S P(+,+++.++, P?,S COSS."2Petitioner sub!its that a rela5ation of the ri.id rules of technical procedure is called for in vie1 of the attendant circu!stances sho1in. that the obo1ever, if the error, subead8uarters of the PNP issued on October 6, "$$( Special Order No. $", preventivel4 suspendin. the petitioner fro! the service until the case 1as ter!inated.(he petitioner 1as arrested b4 virtue of a 1arrant issued b4 the RC, 1hile accused 0o!bita re!ained at lar.e. he petitioner posted bail and 1as .ranted te!porar4 libert4.7hen arrai.ned on %pril $, "$$",) the petitioner, assisted b4 counsel, pleaded not .uilt4 to the offense char.ed. hereafter,on Dece!ber (), "$$", the petitioner filed a Motion to Euash*the Infor!ation alle.in. that as !andated b4 Co!!on1ealth %ct No. *+2,/ in relation to Section ", Presidential Decree No. "2(( and Section $/ of R.%. No. 6$#/, the court !artial, not the RC, had ead8uarters 1rote 9ud.e David C.Naval re8uestin. infor!ation on 1hether he issued an order liftin. the petitionerKs suspension. he RC did not repl4. hus, on :ebruar4 ((, "$$*, the petitioner filed a !otion in the RC for the liftin. of the order of suspension. >e alle.ed that he had served the $+&da4 preventive suspension and pleaded for co!passionate E :ORE'OIN', the petition is DISMISSED. No pronounce!ent as to costs.SO ORDERED.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN 0%NCG.R. No. 1;;001May ;, 2003EMOST!ENES P. AGAN, JR., JOSEP! B. CATA!AN, JOSE MARI B. REUNILLA, MANUEL ANTONIO B. BOAE, MAMERTO S. CLARA, REUEL E. IMALANTA, MOR8 9. OMALAON, CONRAO G. IMAANO, LOLITA R. !I7ON, REMEIOS P. AOL"O, BIEN9ENIO C. !ILARIO, MIASCOR 4OR>ERS UNION : NATIONAL LABOR UNION BM4U:NLUC, an# P!ILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLO8EES ASSOCIATION BPALEAC, petitioners, vs.P!ILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUT!ORIT8, EPARTMENT O" TRANSPORTATION AN COMMUNICATIONS an# SECRETAR8 LEANRO M. MENO7A, (n 1() 0a-a0('y a) !+a# o% '1+ +-ar',+n' o% Tran)-or'a'(on an# Co,,un(0a'(on), respondents,MIASCOR GROUN!ANLING CORPORATION, NATA:4INGS A9IATION S8STEMS CORPORATION, MACROASIA:EUREST SER9ICES, INC., MACROASIA:MEN7IES AIRPORT SER9ICES CORPORATION, MIASCOR CATERING SER9ICES CORPORATION, MIASCOR AIRCRA"T MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, an# MIASCOR LOGISTICS CORPORATION, petitioners&in&intervention,5&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&5G.R. No. 1;;;4< May ;, 2003SALACNIB ". BATERINA, CLA9EL A. MARTINE7 an# CONSTANTINO G. JARAULA, petitioners, vs.P!ILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUT!ORIT8, EPARTMENT O" TRANSPORTATION AN COMMUNICATIONS, EPARTMENT O" PUBLIC 4OR>S AN !IG!4A8S, SECRETAR8 LEANRO M. MENO7A, (n 1() 0a-a0('y a) !+a# o% '1+ +-ar',+n' o% Tran)-or'a'(on an# Co,,un(0a'(on), an# SECRETAR8 SIMEON A. ATUMANONG, (n 1() 0a-a0('y a) !+a# o% '1++-ar',+n' o% Pu*&(0 4or.) an# !(/12ay), respondents,JACINTO 9. PARAS, RA"AEL P. NANTES, EUARO C. 7IALCITA, 4ILL8 BU8SON 9ILLARAMA, PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, PROSPERO A. PIC!A8, JR., !ARLIN CAST ABA8ON, an# BENASING O. MACARANBON, respondents&intervenors,5&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&5G.R. No. 1;;661 May ;, 2003CE"ERINO C. LOPE7, RAMON M. SALES, AL"REO B. 9ALENCIA, MA. TERESA 9. GAERLAN, LEONARO E LA ROSA, INA C. E LEON, 9IRGIE CATAMIN RONAL SC!LOBOM, ANGELITO SANTOS, MA. LUISA M. PALCONan# SAMA!ANG MANGGAGA4A SA PALIPARAN NG PILIPINAS BSMPPC, petitioners, vs.P!ILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUT!ORIT8, EPARTMENT O" TRANSPORTATION AN COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETAR8 LEANRO M. MENO7A, (n 1() 0a-a0('y a) !+a# o% '1+ +-ar',+n' o% Tran)-or'a'(on an# Co,,un(0a'(on), respondents.PUNO, J.@Petitioners and petitioners&in&intervention filed the instant petitions for prohibition under Rule 6/ of the Revised Rules ofCourt see;in. to prohibit the Manila International %irport %uthorit4 GMI%%H and the Depart!ent of ransportation and Co!!unications GDOCH and its Secretar4 fro! i!ple!entin. the follo1in. a.ree!ents e5ecuted b4 the Philippine 'overn!ent throu.h the DOC and the MI%% and the Philippine International %ir er!inals Co., Inc. GPI%COHB G"H the Concession %.ree!ent si.ned on 9ul4 "(, "$$#, G(H the %!ended and Restated Concession %.ree!ent dated Nove!ber (6, "$$$, G)H the :irst Supple!ent to the %!endedand Restated Concession %.ree!ent dated %u.ust (#, "$$$, G*H the Second Supple!ent to the %!ended and Restated Concession %.ree!ent dated Septe!ber *, (+++, and G/H thehird Supple!ent to the %!ended and Restated Concession %.ree!ent dated 9une ((, (++" Gcollectivel4, the PI%CO ContractsH.he facts are as follo1sBIn %u.ust "$2$, the DOC en.a.ed the services of %eroport de Paris G%DPH to conduct a co!prehensive stud4 of the Nino4 %8uino International %irport GN%I%H and deter!ine 1hether the present airport can cope 1ith the traffic develop!ent up to the 4ear (+"+. he stud4 consisted of t1o partsB first, traffic forecasts, capacit4of e5istin. facilities, N%I% future re8uire!ents, proposed !aster plans and develop!ent plans@ and second, presentation of the preli!inar4 desi.n of thepassen.er ter!inal buildin.. he %DP sub!itted a Draft :inal Report to the DOC in Dece!ber "$2$.So!e ti!e in "$$), si5 business leaders consistin. of 9ohn 'o;on.1ei, %ndre1 'otianun, >enr4 S4, Sr., ?ucio an, 'eor.e 4 and %lfonso Duchen.co !et 1ith then President :idel V. Ra!os to e5plore the possibilit4 of investin. in the construction and operation of a ne1 international airport ter!inal. o si.nif4 their co!!it!ent to pursue the pro