Prac 1-Procedural Error

8/12/2019 Prac 1-Procedural Error

1/62

Prac 1

13 Jan 2014

Give ample time to conduct court visit.

Midterm Exam will be an actual simulation on Court earin!. "ir will !ive te scenario.

"ir will assi!n # or $ public readin!s about public spea%in!.

&ress up in te midterm'

Part o( court visit) cec% te wor%in! attire o( te law*ers.

+at is our textual proo() (ound in te ,-C) tat embodies te udicial policies

enunciated wa* bac% in 1/10 in lono vs. illamor

Answer: The litigation is not a game of practice. Alonzo vs. Villamor

Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, provides:

SEC. 110.Amendments in general. The court shall, in furtherance of justice, andon such terms, if an, as ma !e proper, allow a part to amend an pleadin" orproceedin" and at an sta"e of the action, in either the Court of #irst $nstance or theSupreme Court, ! addin" or stri%in" out the name of an part, either plaintiff ordefendant, or ! correctin" a mista%e in the name of a part, or a mista%en orinade&uate alle"ation or description in an other respect so that the actual merits ofthe controvers ma speedil !e determined, without re"ard to technicalities, and inthe most e'peditious, and ine'pensive manner. The court ma also, upon li%e terms,allow an answer or other pleadin" to !e made after the time limited ! the rules ofthe court for filin" the same. (rders of the court upon the matters provided in thissection shall !e made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adversepart, and an opportunit to !e heard.

Section )0* of the same code provides:

SEC. )0*. Judgment not to be reversed on technical grounds. +o jud"ment shall!e reversed on formal or technical "rounds, or for such error as has not prejudicedthe real ri"hts of the e'ceptin" part.


2/62

aldecantos vs. People 200$ case. 5P 22. Me6C and ,6C a((irmed. C dismiss (or

(ailure cop* (urnised ,6C.

7a!uas vs. C "entenced o( a omicide 8914 *ears. C dismissed on te !round o(

prescription. "C dismissed te appeal. :ailure to submit ppellant;s 5rie(.

ext wee%= court visits.

c?uaint *oursel( o( usual case (low.

PRAC 1

RULE 1, SEC. 6 RULES OF COURT. This Rules shall be liberally construed in order to

ro!ote their ob"ecti#e o$ "ust, seedy and ine%ensi#e disosition o$ e#ery action anald

roceedin&.


3/62

Read Alon'o (s. (illa!or ) Party *n *nterest

G.R. No. L-2352 July 26, 1910

ELADIO ALONSO,plaintiffappellee,vs.TOMAS VILLAMOR, ET AL.,defendantsappellants.

Ledesma, Sumulong and Quintos, for appellants.J. C. Knudson, for appellee.

MORELAND, J.:

This is an action !rou"ht to recover of the defendants the value of certain articles ta%en from a-oman Catholic Church located in the municipalit of Placer, and the rental value of the church andits appurtenances, includin" the church cemeter, from the 11th da of ecem!er, 1/01, until themonth of pril, 1/0. fter hearin" the evidence, the court !elow "ave jud"ment in favor of theplaintiff for the sum of P1,)21, with interest at 3 per cent from the date of the jud"ment. The said

sum of P1,)21 was made up of two items, one of which, P41, was for the value of the articles ta%enfrom the church, and the other, P20, the rental value of the premises durin" the occupations !defendants. #rom this jud"ment the defendants appealed to this court.

$t appears that the defendants were on the 11th da of ecem!er, 1/01, mem!ers of the municipal!oard of the municipalit of Placer, and that the on that date addressed to the plaintiff in this case,who was the priest in char"e of the church, its appurtenances and contents, the followin" letter:

P5CE-, 11th December, 1!1.

-. P. E5$( 5(+S(, 6enedicto, Suria"o.

ESTEE7E P-E: fter salutin" ou, we ta%e the li!ert of writin" ou that in themunicipalit of which we have char"ed we have received an order from the provincialfiscal, dated the )th instant, which sas: 8The cemeteries, convents, and the other!uildin"s erected on land !elon"in" to the town at the e'pense of the town andpreserved ! it !elon" to the town, and for this reason the municipalit is under theo!li"ation of administerin" them and of collectin" the revenues therefrom, and forthis reason we notif ou that from this date all of the revenues and productstherefrom must !e turned into the treasur of the municipalit in order that the peoplema properl preserve them.

$n the same wa we notif ou that the ima"e of St. 9icente which is now in thechurch, as it is an ima"e donated to the people ! its owner, ! virtue of said order is

also the propert of said people, and therefore the alms which are "iven it ! thedevotees thereof must !e also turned into the municipal treasur for the properpreservation of the church and for other necessar purposes. e hope that ou willview in the proper li"ht and that ou will deliver to the !earer of this letter the %e ofthe alms !o' of the said ima"e in order that we ma compl with our o!li"ation inconformit with the dispositions of said order.

e !e" to remain as alwas ! our spiritual sons. ;. 6. S. 7.


4/62


5/62

correct and proper. hile some o!jection was made on appeal ! counsel for the defendants thatthe value of the articles ta%en and of the rent of the church and its appurtenances had not !eenproved ! competent evidence, no o!jection to the introduction of the evidence of value was madeat the trial and we can not consider that &uestion raised for the first time here.

e have carefull e'amined the assi"nments of error made ! counsel for defendants on this

appeal. e find none of them well founded. The onl one which deserves especial attention at ourhands is the one wherein the defendants assert that the court !elow erred in permittin" the action to!e !rou"ht and continued in the name of the plaintiff instead of in the name of the !ishop of thediocese within which the church was located, or in the name of the -oman Catholic postolicChurch, as the real part in interest.

$t is undou!ted the !ishop of the diocese or the -oman Catholic postic Church itself is the realpart in interest. The plaintiff personall has no interest in the cause of action. Section 11 of theCode of Civil Procedure re&uires that ever action must !e prosecuted in the name of the real partin interest. The plaintiff is not such part.

Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, provides:

SEC. 110.Amendments in general. The court shall, in furtherance of justice, andon such terms, if an, as ma !e proper, allow a part to amend an pleadin" orproceedin" and at an sta"e of the action, in either the Court of #irst $nstance or theSupreme Court, ! addin" or stri%in" out the name of an part, either plaintiff ordefendant, or ! correctin" a mista%e in the name of a part, or a mista%en orinade&uate alle"ation or description in an other respect so that the actual merits ofthe controvers ma speedil !e determined, without re"ard to technicalities, and inthe most e'peditious, and ine'pensive manner. The court ma also, upon li%e terms,allow an answer or other pleadin" to !e made after the time limited ! the rules ofthe court for filin" the same. (rders of the court upon the matters provided in thissection shall !e made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adversepart, and an opportunit to !e heard.

Section )0* of the same code provides:

SEC. )0*. Judgment not to be reversed on technical grounds. +o jud"ment shall!e reversed on formal or technical "rounds, or for such error as has not prejudicedthe real ri"hts of the e'ceptin" part.

e are confident under these provisions that this cour !"# $ull %o&'r, apart from that power andauthorit which is inherent, to amend the process, pleadin"s, proceedin"s, and decision in this case! #u(#)u)*+, "# %"ry %l")*)$$, !' r'"l %"ry )* )*'r'#. +ot onl are we confident that wema'do so, !ut we are convinced that we should do so. Such an amendment does not constitute,reall a chan"e in the identit of the parties. The plaintiff asserts in his complaint, and maintains that

assertion all throu"h the record, that he is en"a"ed in the prosecution of this case, not for himself,!ut for the !ishop of the diocesenot ! his own ri"ht, !ut ! ri"ht of another. e see%s merel todo for the !ishop what the !ishop mi"ht do for himself. is own personalit is not involved. is ownri"hts are not presented. e claims no interest whatever in the liti"ation. e see%s onl the welfareof the "reat church whose servant he is. Bladl permits his identit to !e wholl swallowed up in thatof his superior. The su!stitution, then, of the name of the !ishop of the diocese, or the -omanCatholic postolic Church, for that of Padre lonso, as part plaintiff, is not in realit the su!stitutionof one identit for another, of one part for another, !ut is simpl to ma%e the form e'press thesu!stance. The su!stance is there. $t appears all throu"h the proceedin"s. +o one is deceived for an


6/62

instant as to whose interest are at sta%e. The form of its e'pression is alone defective. T!'#u(#)u)o*, !'*, )# *o #u(#"*)"l (u $or"l. D'$'c )* 'r' $or c"* *o %o##)(ly #o lo*+"# !' #u(#"*)"l )# cl'"rly ')'*.#orm is a method of speech used to e'press su!stance andma%e it clearl appear. $t is the means ! which the su!stance reveals itself. $f the form !e fault andstill the su!stance shows plainl throu"h no, harm can come ! ma%in" the form accuratele'pressive of the su!stance.

+o one has !een misled ! the error in the name of the part plaintiff. $f we should ! reason of thiserror send this !ac% for amendment and new trial, there would !e on the retrial the same complaint,the same answer, the same defense, the same interests, the same witnesses, and the sameevidence. The name of the plaintiff would constitute the onl difference !etween the old trial and thenew. $n our jud"ment there is not enou"h in a name to justif such action.

There is nothin" sacred a!out processes or pleadin"s, their forms or contents. Their sole purpose isto facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contendin" parties. The were created, notto hinder and dela, !ut to facilitate and promote, the administration of justice. The do not constitutethe thin" itself, which courts are alwas strivin" to secure to liti"ants. The are desi"ned as themeans !est adapted to o!tain that thin". $n other words, the are a means to an end. hen the

lose the character of the one and !ecome the other, the administration of justice is at fault andcourts are correspondin"l remiss in the performance of their o!vious dut.

The error in this case is purel technical. To ta%e advanta"e of it for other purposes than to cure it,does not appeal to a fair sense of justice. $ts presentation as fatal to the plaintiffFs case smac%s ofs%ill rather than ri"ht. A l))+")o* )# *o " +"' o$ 'c!*)c"l))'# )* &!)c! o*', or' ''%ly#c!ool' "* #/)ll' )* !' #u(l' "r o$ o''* "* %o#))o*, '*r"%# "* '#roy# !'o!'r. I )#, r"!'r, " co*'# )* &!)c! '"c! co*'*)*+ %"ry $ully "* $")rly l"y# ('$or' !'cour !' $"c# )* )##u' "* !'*, (ru#!)*+ "#)' "# &!olly r))"l "* )*'c)#)' "ll)%'r$'c)o*# o$ $or "* 'c!*)c"l))'# o$ %roc'ur', "#/# !" u#)c' (' o*' u%o* !''r)#. L"u)#, u*l)/' u'l#, "r' *o o (' &o* (y " r"%)'r# !ru#. T'c!*)c"l)y, &!'* )'##'r# )# %ro%'r o$$)c' "# "* ") o u#)c' "* ('co'# )# +r'" !)*r"*c' "* c!)'$'*'y, '#'r'# #c"* co*#)'r")o* $ro cour#. T!'r' #!oul (' *o '#' r)+!# )*

'c!*)c"l))'#. No l))+"* #!oul (' %'r)' o c!"ll'*+' " r'cor o$ " cour o$ !'#'I#l"*# $or '$'c o$ $or &!'* !)# #u(#"*)"l r)+!# !"' *o (''* %r'u)c' !'r'(y.

$n orderin" this su!stitution, we are in accord with the !est judicial thou"ht. ud"e, 2 7ich., )1H $nsurance Co, vs. 7ueller, 44 $ll., H#arman vs. ole, 12 7ich., 3/3H ?nion 6an% vs. 7ott, 1/ ow. Pr., 11H -. -. Co. vs. Bi!son, (hio St., 1)H ume vs. Gell, 2 (re"., */2.=

$t is therefore, ordered and decreed that the process, pleadin"s, proceedin"s and decision in this

action !e, and the same are here!, amended ! su!stitutin" the -oman Catholic postolic Church

in the place and stead of Eladio lonso as part plaintiff, that the complaint !e considered as thou"h

ori"inall filed ! the Catholic Church, the answer thereto made, the decision rendered and all

proceedin"s in this case had, as if the said institution which #ather Eladio lonso undertoo% to

represent were the part plaintiff, and that said decision of the court !elow, so amended, is affirmed,

without special findin" as to the costs.


7/62

ART. (***, Sec. +, 1- Consti.

S'c)o* 5.The Supreme Court shall have the followin" powers:

1. E'ercise ori"inal jurisdiction over cases affectin" am!assadors, other pu!licministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohi!ition, mandamus,&uo warranto, and ha!eas corpus.

. -eview, revise, reverse, modif, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law orthe -ules of Court ma provide, final jud"ments and orders of lower courts in:

a. ll cases in which the constitutionalit or validit of an treat,international or e'ecutive a"reement, law, presidential decree,proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or re"ulation is in &uestion.

!. ll cases involvin" the le"alit of an ta', impost, assessment, or toll, oran penalt imposed in relation thereto.

c. ll cases in which the jurisdiction of an lower court is in issue.

d. ll criminal cases in which the penalt imposed is reclusion perpetua orhi"her.

e. ll cases in which onl an error or &uestion of law is involved.

*. ssi"n temporaril jud"es of lower courts to other stations as pu!lic interest mare&uire. Such temporar assi"nment shall not e'ceed si' months without theconsent of the jud"e concerned.

. (rder a chan"e of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarria"e of justice.

). Promul"ate rules concernin" the protection and enforcement of constitutionalri"hts, pleadin", practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to thepractice of law, the inte"rated !ar, and le"al assistance to the underprivile"ed.Such rules shall provide a simplified and ine'pensive procedure for the speeddisposition of cases, shall !e uniform for all courts of the same "rade, and shallnot diminish, increase, or modif su!stantive ri"hts. -ules of procedure of specialcourts and &uasijudicial !odies shall remain effective unless disapproved ! theSupreme Court.

3. ppoint all officials and emploees of the >udiciar in accordancewith the Civil Service 5aw.


8/62

P,C6-) M) ,E6-")petitioner,

vs.

PE-P7E -: 6AE PAin or credit with the drawee 5an for the pa)ment of s&ch chec in f&ll presentment, which chec

was s&5se>&entl) dishonored for ins&fficienc) of f&nds or credit, had not said acc&sed, witho&t

an) valid reason, ordered the 5an to stop the pa)ment of said chec, and with intent to defra&d,


9/62

failed and still fails to pa) said #E;"A"D!

receipt of notice from the drawee 5an that said chec had 5een dishonored and had not 5een

paid.

%TC finds acc&sed %aril)n Valdecantos ) Valmose?a,


10/62

;9@I"&irement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not 6&risdictional. &ch

re>&irement is simpl) a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non/compliance of which

does not necessaril) render the pleading fatall) defective. Verification is simpl) intended to

sec&re an ass&rance that the allegations in the pleading are tr&e and correct and not the prod&ct of

the imagination or a matter of spec&lation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The co&rt

ma) order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacing or act on the pleading altho&gh

it is not verified, if the attending circ&mstances are s&ch that strict compliance with the r&les ma)

5e dispensed with in order that the ends of 6&stice ma) there5) 5e served.

Fhile the lac of certification against for&m shopping is generall) not c&red 5) its s&5mission

after the filing of the petition, and the s&5mission of a certificate against for&m shopping is

deemed o5ligator), it is not 6&risdictional. "ot 5eing 6&risdictional, the re>&irement has 5een

relaGed &nder 6&stifia5le circ&mstances &nder the r&le on s&5stantial compliance.

In this case, on Decem5er 0, -444, three da)s after petitioner filed her petition for review on

"ovem5er -2, -444, she immediatel) rectified her error 5) filing a &5mission of Verification

and Certification Against #or&m hopping attaching thereto her Verification and Certification.

ignificantl), s&ch verification and certification was s&5mitted even 5efore the petition was

dismissed 5) the CA on Decem5er 1, -444.

In addition, the Co&rt notes that petitioner had appended a verification and certification against

for&m shopping in her motion for eGtension of time to file petition for review with the CA which

f&rther lends credence to her claim that indeed it was onl) d&e to inadvertence that she failed to

s&5mit the certification in her petition for review.

These circ&mstances mitigate the oversight. It is in the interest of s&5stantial 6&stice that the

s&5se>&ent filing of the verification and certification of non/for&m shopping 5e considered as

s&5stantial compliance of the r&le.


11/62

$etitioner liewise attached the missing pleadings and pertinent doc&ments of the case when she

filed her motion for reconsideration. Jurisprudence dictates tat te subse?uent and

substantial compliance o( a petitioner ma* call (or te relaxation o( te rules o( procedure.

The Co&rt also taes note of the fact that petitioner had f&rnished the ;TC with a cop) of the

petition the following da) after her receipt of the CA ;esol&tion dismissing her petition.

Th&s, petitioners s&5stantial compliance with ections 0 and -, ;&le +- of the ;&les of Co&rt

sho&ld have prompted the CA to reconsider the dismissal of the petition for review on technical

gro&nds. In dismissing the petition, the CA clearl) p&t a premi&m on technicalities at the eGpense

of a 6&st resol&tion of the case which sho&ld 5e avoided.

;&les of proced&re are mere tools designed to eGpedite the decision or resol&tion of cases and

other matters pending in co&rt. A strict and rigid application of r&les that wo&ld res&lt in

technicalities that tend to fr&strate rather than promote s&5stantial 6&stice m&st 5e avoided.


12/62

DC-@,6 &&ilina &ired siG parcels of land which 5ecame the s&56ect of the instant case.

In !cto5er 011, the descendants of *ernardoHs first and second marriage 'herein respondents(

filed a complaint for partition against the descendants of his third marriage 'herein petitioners(.

The complaint alleged, among others, that respondents and petitioners were co/owners of the

properties in >&estion, having inherited the same from *ernardo Cavili. 9pon the death of

*ernardo, his son 5) his third marriage, Castor Cavili, too possession of the properties as

administrator for and in 5ehalf of his co/owners. 7owever, when Castor died, his children too

possession of the parcels of land 5&t no longer as administrators. The) claimed the properties as

well as their fr&its as their own and repeatedl) ref&sed respondentsH demand for partition.

As petitioners failed to file an Answer within the reglementar) period, the) were declared in

defa&lt and respondents were allowed to present evidence ex parte. The trial co&rt rendered adecision on !cto5er 3, 01 ordering the partition of the siG parcels of land.00J7owever, &pon

motion of $rimitivo Cavili and K&irino Cavili who were not properl) served with s&mmons, the

trial co&rt held a new trial and allowed said parties to present evidence. Among the evidence

the) proferred was a Deed of $artition which appeared to have 5een eGec&ted 5) the heirs of

1


13/62

*ernardo Cavili on April 3, 081.--J &ired to 5e attached to petitions

for review filed with this Co&rt and second, the Co&rt of Appeals did not commit an) error in its

assailed decision. ;espondents harp on the fact that onl) one of the twent)/two '--( petitioners,

Thomas &ire that said certification m&st 5e signed 5) all the petitioners.

I9E: Fhether or not the certification against for&m shopping attached to the petition was

signed 5) onl) one of the petitioners is proper.

;&ling:

The r&le is that the certificate of non/for&m shopping m&st 5e signed 5) all the petitioners or

plaintiffs in a case and the signing 5) onl) one of them is ins&fficient. 7owever, the Co&rt has

also stressed that the r&les on for&m shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the

orderl) administration of 6&stice, sho&ld not 5e interpreted with s&ch a5sol&te literalness as to

s&5vert its own &ltimate and legitimate o56ective.81J The r&le of s&5stantial compliance ma) 5e

availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is 5eca&se the re>&irement of

strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non/for&m shopping merel)

&nderscores its mandator) nat&re in that the certification cannot 5e altogether dispensed with or

/

0


14/62


15/62

DC-@,6 &

#acts:

A complaint for s&m of mone) was filed 5efore the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of %aati 5) the

respondent %etropolitan *an and Tr&st Compan) '%etro5an( against petitioner %edian

Container Corporation '%CC( and po&ses Carlos and #el) @e), Vice $resident=Treas&rer of

%%C, for fail&re to settle the o&tstanding 5alance of loan contracted 5) %CC which was

represented 5) #el) @e).

%CC filed a %otion to Dismiss on the gro&nd that the verification on certificate against non/

for&m shopping was defective. %CC >&estioned the a&thorit) of Att). AleGander $. %endoza

to sign the same on 5ehalf of %etro5an. %CC contends that the a&thorization was given onl) to

Att). %endoza on N&ne 48, -448 and the verification and certification against non/for&m

shopping, which was verified and signed 5) the said co&nsel, was dated on %a) -2, -448. In

effect, the verification and certification 5) the %etro5an has no valid effect.

The ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of %aati denied %CCOs %otion to Dismiss. The matter was

elevated to the Co&rt of Appeals which denied the appeal.

&ired certification against for&m shopping, fail&re to compl) therewith is generall)

not c&ra5le 5) its s&5mission s&5se>&ent to the filing of the petition or 5) amendment. 7owever,


16/62

the Co&rt relaGed the application of these re>&irements &pon appreciation of attendant special

circ&mstances or compelling reasons.

In the case at 5ar, sim&ltaneo&s with the filing of the complaint, %etro5an s&5mitted 5oth a

certification of non/for&m shopping and proof that Att). %endoza who signed it on its 5ehalf

was a&thorized to do so. The proof of a&thorization of Att). %endoza was dated later than the

date of his signing of the certification of non/for&m shopping, however, th&s giving the

impression that he, at the time he affiGed his signat&re, was not a&thorized to do so.

The passing on N&ne 8, -44+ of a *oard ;esol&tion of a&thorization 5efore the act&al filing on

N&ne -8, -44+ of the complaint, however, is deemed a ratification of Att). %endozaOs prior

eGec&tion on %a) -2, -44+ of the verification and certificate of non/for&m shopping, th&s c&ring

an) defects thereof.


17/62

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,7 E,,-,D(orum soppin!

G.,. >o. 1$8313 -ctober $) 2010

5>B -: 6AE PA G,-@P

E>6E,P,


18/62

!n April 0, -44-, #irst 9nion and @inda filed a motion to dismiss on the gro&nd that *$I

violated ;&le 1, ection 3 of the ;&les of Civil $roced&re ';&les( *$I failed to attach to the

complaint the necessar) 5oard resol&tion a&thorizing Asis and !ng to instit&te the collection

action against #irst 9nion and @inda.

Instead of s&5mitting a 5oard resol&tion, *$I attached a pecial $ower of Attorne) '$A(

dated Decem5er -4, -440 eGec&ted 5)Posimo A. a5igting 'Posimo(, Vice/$resident of

*$I.The $A a&thorized Asis and !ng or an) law)er from the *enedictoVersoza&irements of verification and certification *$I onl) s&5mitted the $A and the *oard

;esol&tion after it had filed the complaint.

I9E:

Fhether or not the case 5e dismissed for fail&re of *$I to s&5mit $A and *oard of ;esol&tion.

T7E C!9;TH ;9@I"&irements it imposes. The verification of a complaint and the attachment of a certificate of

non/for&m shopping are re>&irements that Q as pointed o&t 5) the Co&rt, time and again Q are

5asic, necessar) and mandator) for proced&ral orderliness.

Th&s, we cannot simpl) and in a general wa) appl) Q given the fact&al circ&mstances of this case

Q the li5eral 6&rispr&dential eGception in hipside and its line of cases to eGc&se *$IHs fail&re to

s&5mit a 5oard resol&tion. Fhile we ma) have eGc&sed strict compliance in the past, we did so

onl* on su((icient and usti(iable !roundstat compelled a liberal approac wile avoidin!

te e((ective ne!ation o( te intent o( te rule on non9(orum soppin! . In other words, the

r&le for the s&5mission of a certificate of non/for&m shopping, proper in form and s&5stance,


19/62

remains to 5e a strict and mandator) r&le an) li5eral application has to 5e 6&stified 5) ample and

s&fficient reasons that maintain the integrit) of, and do not detract from, the mandator) character

of the r&le.

The r&le, its relaGation and their rationale were disc&ssed 5) the Co&rt at length in Ti5leRTi5le

Compan), Inc. v. ;o)al avings and @oan Association30where we said:

%&ch reliance is placed on the r&le that Courts are not slaves or robots of technical rules, shorn

of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be,

conscientiously guided by the norm that on balance, technicalities take a backseat against

substantive rights, and not the other way around. This r&le m&st alwa)s 5e &sed in the right

conteGt, lest in6&stice, rather than 6&stice wo&ld 5e its end res&lt.

It m&st never 5e forgotten that) !enerall*) te application o( te rules must be upeld) and te

suspension or even mere relaxation o( its application) is te exception.This Co&rt previo&sl)

eGplained:

The Co&rt is not impervio&s to the fr&stration that litigants and law)ers alie wo&ld at times

enco&nter in proced&ral 5&rea&crac) 5&t imperative 6&stice re>&ires correct observance of

indispensable technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper dispensation . It has long

5een recognized that strict compliance with the ;&les of Co&rt is indispensa5le for the

prevention of needless dela)s and for the orderl) and eGpeditio&s dispatch of 6&dicial 5&siness.

Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to

suit the convenience of a party. Ad6ective law is important in ens&ring the effective enforcement

of s&5stantive rights thro&gh the orderl) and speed) administration of 6&stice. These r&les are not

intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation 5&t, indeed to provide for a s)stem &nder

which a s&itor ma) 5e heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescri5ed time in a

peacef&l confrontation 5efore a 6&dge whose a&thorit) the) acnowledge.

This same r&le was echoed in %ediserv v. Co&rt of Appeals where we said in the co&rse of

allowing a li5eral 6&stification:

It is settled that li5eral constr&ction of the r&les ma) 5e invoed in sit&ations where there ma) 5e

some eGc&sa5le formal deficienc) or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not s&5vert
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_168313_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_168313_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_168313_2010.html#fnt51


20/62

the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasona5le attempt at compliance with the

r&les. After all, r&les of proced&re are not to 5e applied in a ver) rigid, technical sense the) are

&sed onl) to help sec&re s&5stantial 6&stice.

9nder the circ&mstances, what applies to the present case is the second paragraph of ection 3,

;&le 1 of the ;&les of Co&rt which states:

#ail&re to compl) with the foregoing re>&irements shall not 5e c&ra5le 5) mere amendment of

the complaint or other initiator) pleading 5&t shall 5e ca&se for the dismissal of the case witho&t

pre6&dice, &nless otherwise provided, &pon motion and after hearing.

Fe th&s hold that the dismissal of the case is the appropriate r&ling from this Co&rt, witho&t

pre6&dice to its refiling as the ;&les allow.


21/62

P,-CE&@,7 E,,-, -,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,7 E,,-, DP,E"C,o. 1F33/0 June 2F) 2012

ME7CA-, 7. 7G@) $etitioner,

vs.

6AE A->. C-@,6 -: PPE7" and PE-P7E -: 6AE PA


22/62

&espite te two extensions, petitioner @ag&a still failed to file his appellant;s brie(. !n 3 %a)

-44+, the CA ordered him thro&gh co&nsel to show ca&se, within five da)s from receipt, wh) the

appeal sho&ld not 5e dismissed p&rs&ant to ection 2, ;&le 0-+ of the ;&les of Co&rt. 7e again

failed to s&5mit his 5rief within the reglementar) period and to compl) with the Co&rtHs 3 %a)

-44+ ;esol&tion. Th&s, on 0 eptem5er -44+, the CA iss&ed a ;esol&tion declaring the appeal.

In its second assailed ;esol&tion iss&ed on 01 %a) -44B, the CA denied petitionerHs %otion for

;econsideration and ordered the AppellantHs *rief to 5e eGp&nged from the records, viz:

Indeed the present appeal has 5een dismissed twice 5) the Co&rt 5eca&se of acc&sed/appellantHs

fail&re to file his 5rief.

$etitioner comes to this Co&rt alleging grave a5&se of discretion on the part of the lower co&rt in

declaring the appeal a5andoned, pointing to the negligence and errors of his co&nsel as the ca&se

of the two/)ear dela) in coming &p with the 5rief

I9E:

Fhether or not there is grave a5&se of discretion on the part of CA in declaring the appeal

a5andoned.

,ulin!=

Fe dismiss the $etition.

The certiorari 6&risdiction of the &preme Co&rt is rigoro&sl) streamlined, s&ch that ;&le B3 onl)

admits cases 5ased on the specific gro&nds provided therein. The ;&le applies if there is no

appeal or an) other plain, speed), and ade>&ate remed) in the ordinar) co&rse of law. The

independent action for certiorari will lie onl) if grave a5&se of discretion is alleged and proven to

eGist.


23/62

In the present case, petitioner wo&ld have &s strie down the ;esol&tions of the CA declaring his

appeal as a5andoned for p&rportedl) 5eing iss&ed in grave a5&se of discretion. et, far from

committing the grievo&s error petitioner presents it to 5e, the CA merel) eGercised the a&thorit)

eGpressl) granted to it &nder ;&le 0-+, which we >&ote 5elow:

ec. 2.ismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. Q The appellate co&rt ma),

&pon motion of the appellee or on its own motion and notice to the appellant, dismiss the appeal

if the appellant fails to file his 5rief within the time prescri5ed 5) this r&le, eGcept in case the

appellant is represented 5) a co&nsel de oficio.

In his $etition, @ag&a 5ewails the negligence and mishandling 5) his two previo&s co&nsels as

the reason for the dela), which has lasted for more than two )ears. 7owever, it is clear from the

facts that despite the li5eralit) and consideration afforded to him 5) the CA, he is 5) no means

5lameless. %ore importantl), his eGc&se cannot serve as a s&5stit&te for the 6&risdictional

re>&irements &nder ;&le B3. It does not amo&nt to an) grave a5&se of discretion tantamo&nt to

lac or eGcess of discretion that ma) 5e attri5&ta5le to the appellate co&rt. 9nder the

circ&mstances, the CA was well within the a&thorit) granted to it &nder the cited r&le.

"othing is more settled than the r&le that the negligence and mistaes of co&nsel are 5inding on

the client. !therwise, there wo&ld never 5e an end to a s&it, so long as co&nsel co&ld allege its

own fa&lt or negligence to s&pport the clientHs case and o5tain remedies and reliefs alread) lost

5) the operation of law.

The Co&rt cannot tolerate ha5it&al fail&re to follow the proced&ral r&les, which are indispensa5le

for the orderl) and speed) disposition of 6&stice. !therwise these r&les wo&ld 5e rendered

&seless. In $olintan v. $eople, the Co&rt of Appeals gave the petitioner therein a total of 13 da)s

to s&5mit his AppellantHs *rief, 5&t he failed to do so. In that case, the acc&sed $olintan filed a

Ver) 9rgent EG/$arte %otion to Admit AppellantHs *rief. This Co&rt affirmed the CA

;esol&tion declaring his appeal a5andoned, after finding his eGc&ses too flims) to warrant

reversal.


24/62


25/62

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,7 E,,-, D7ate submission o(

appellant;s brie(

G.,. >o. 1$182F pril 21) 200/

P-76> vs. PE-P7E

:C6"=

Assistant Cit) $rosec&tor ;alph . @ee filed two informations8dated - N&ne 08 with the

;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC(, "ational Capital N&dicial ;egion, *ranch --+, K&ezon Cit),

charging $olintan with violation of *atas $am5ansa *ilang --. The two cases were doceted as

Criminal Case "os. K/8/+B0 and K/8/+B-44. D&ring his arraignment on -2 A&g&st 08,

$olintan pleaded not g&ilt) to 5oth charges.

!n 0+ eptem5er 08, the ;TC provisionall) dismissed the two cases 5eca&se $olintan agreed

to settle the civil aspect of the cases. !n 84 A&g&st 0+, the ;TC granted the motion to revive

the two cases.

$olintan filed an omni5&s motionBfor new trial and reconsideration of the 01 Nan&ar) 0B

Decision. In an !rder1dated -+ %a) -44-, the ;TC denied the omni5&s motion. !n 8 N&l) -44-,

$olintan filed a notice2of appeal. In an !rderdated 0+ A&g&st -44-, the ;TC denied the notice

of appeal for 5eing filed o&t of time. $olintan filed a motion04for reconsideration of the 0+

A&g&st -44- !rder. In an !rder00dated 02 "ovem5er -44-, the ;TC, iJn the higher interest of

6&stice, granted the motion for reconsideration.

Iss&e:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_161827_2009.html#fnt11


26/62


27/62


28/62

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,7 E,,-, D7ate submission o(

appellant;s brie(

G.,. >o. 1F33/0

7G@ vs. C

#ACT:

In dismissing the present $etition filed &nder ;&le B3 of the ;&les of Co&rt, we find no valid,

6&stifia5le reason for petitionerHs fail&re to file his appellantHs 5rief with the Co&rt of Appeals

'CA( that wo&ld warrant a reversal of the CA ;esol&tions dated -3 "ovem5er -443and 01 %a)

-44B. To r&le otherwise wo&ld mae light of this Co&rtHs eGtraordinar) certiorari 6&risdiction,

which operates onl) &pon a clear showing of grave a5&se of discretion tantamo&nt to lac or

eGcess of 6&risdiction on the part of the appellate tri5&nal.

!n 00 April -448, the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of $asig rendered a Decision in Criminal

Case "os. 00248-/7 and 002488/7 finding the acc&sed petitioner g&ilt) of homicide and

sentencing him to 2 )ears ofprision mayor as minim&m to 0+ )ears of reclusion temporal as

maGim&m in each case. !n 0 %a) -448, petitioner filed a "otice of Appeal with the CA,

doceted as CA/


29/62


30/62


31/62

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,7 E,,-, Dnotice o( appeal (iled out o(

time

G.,. >o. 12/84$ Januar* 18) 2000

,EP@57B)

:C6"=

!n two occasions in Nan&ar) 02B, the !ffice of the $resident iss&ed fo&r t)pe * Treas&r)

Farrants drawn against the *&rea& of Treas&r) in the aggregate amo&nt of $030,B+3,444.44.

The treas&r) warrants were deposited in private respondent Traders ;o)al *an for

collection.cralaw

!n Nan&ar) 1, 02B, private respondent presented the warrants to the *&rea& of Treas&r) for

clearing. The warrants were cleared and private respondent credited the amo&nts to the

designated pa)eesH acco&nts.

$etitioner s&5se>&entl) discovered on April 8, 02B that the pa)eesH indorsements on the

warrants had 5een forged. It demanded reim5&rsement from private respondent of the amo&nts

paid on the warrants 5&t the latter ref&sed to pa).cralaw

!n !cto5er 08, 021, petitioner, thro&gh the *&rea& of Treas&r), filed Civil Case "o. 21/+-13-

for collection against private respondent 5efore the ;egional Trial Co&rt, *ranch 0, %anila.Trial then ens&ed. After petitioner had rested its case, private respondent, with prior leave of

co&rt, filed a Dem&rrer to Evidence on Nan&ar) 0-, 0+. Among others, it was contended:

The plaintiff does not claim nor alleged that 5eca&se of the alleged forger) of the indorsements

of the pa)ees, it 'the plaintiff( had to replace the treas&r) warrants in >&estion and th&s pa) the


32/62

pa)ees all over again. Does not the ca&se of action or right to relief, then, if an), properl) pertain

to the pa)ees whose endorsements were allegedl) forgedS And is not s&ch a ca&se of action or

right to relief properl) against the forger=s or perpetrator of the forger)S

In an order dated eptem5er 84, 0+, the trial co&rt denied the dem&rrer to evidence. 7owever,

on motion of private respondent, the trial co&rt, on Nan&ar) 84, 03, reconsidered its order and

dismissed petitionerHs complaint. $etitioner received the order of dismissal on #e5r&ar) 1, 03.

7ence, it had &p to #e5r&ar) --, 03 within which to appeal.

!n %a) -8, 03, the trial co&rt denied petitionerHs motion for reconsideration. The order was

received 5) petitioner on N&ne -, 03, so that it had &ntil N&ne +, 03 within which to file the

notice of appeal. 7owever, petitioner filed its notice of appeal onl) on N&ne 0B, 03, 0- da)s

5e)ond the 03/da) reglementar) period. As a conse>&ence, the dismissal 5ecame final. #or some

reason, this fact was not immediatel) noticed, so that the records of the case were elevated to the

Co&rt of Appeals and petitioner was re>&ired to file its appellantHs 5rief. Fhen it came to its t&rn

to file its 5rief as an appellee, private respondent ased for an eGtension of time. Its motion was

granted, 5&t instead of filing its 5rief, private respondent ased the appellate co&rt to dismiss

petitionerHs appeal on the gro&nd that it was filed o&t of time. Its motion was granted and

petitionerHs appeal was dismissed. $etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, 5&t its motion

was denied. $etitioner received the appellate co&rtHs resol&tion den)ing its motion on N&ne 3,

01, so that it had &ntil N&ne -4, 01 within which to appeal to this Co&rt 5) filing a petition

for review on certiorari &nder ;&le +3. Instead, petitioner filed on A&g&st +, 01, +3 da)s after

the last da) to file an appeal, the present petition for certiorari &nder ;&le B3, contending that the

Co&rt of Appeals gravel) a5&sed its discretion in dismissing its appeal from the order of the ;TC

which dismissed its complaint against private respondent.

I9E: Fhether or not the r&les of proced&re sho&ld 5e relaGed to allow the appeal of the case.

,ulin!=

As earlier stated, this petition sho&ld 5e dismissed.cr


33/62

econd. Even on the gro&nds invoed 5) petitioner, we thin the present petition sho&ld 5e

dismissed. Time and again, we have emphasized that the perfection of appeals in the manner and

within the period permitted 5) law is not onl) mandator) 5&t 6&risdictional, and that the fail&re to

perfect an appeal renders the decision of the trial co&rt final and eGec&tor). BJ This r&le is

fo&nded &pon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of d&e process of law 5&t is a mere

stat&tor) privilege to 5e eGercised onl) in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of

the law. 1J In this case, we find no reason to depart from this r&le.cralaw The case at 5ench,

given its own settings, can not come close to those eGtraordinar) circ&mstances that have indeed

6&stified a deviation from an otherwise stringent r&le. @et it not 5e overlooed that the timeliness

of an appeal is a 6&risdictional caveat that not even this Co&rt can trifle with. 04J chan ro5les

virt&al law li5rar)

As in *an of America, there is no showing in this case of a fact&al setting which approGimates

an) of the eGtraordinar) circ&mstances which ma) 6&stif) a deviation from the r&le on timel)

filing of appeals. An)one seeing eGemption from the application of this r&le has the 5&rden of

proving that eGceptionall) meritorio&s instances eGist which warrant s&ch depart&re. In this case,

petitioner failed to discharge this 5&rden. It offered no eGplanation at all for the 0-/da) dela) in

filing its notice of appeal. Fhat was said in Videogram ;eg&lator) *oard v. Co&rt of Appeals

00J applies with e>&al force to this case, as petitioner is liewise represented 5) the !ffice of

the olicitor


34/62

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,7 E,,-,

P,@&E>66EE >& ""@,>CE) C.

v.

C-@,6 -: PPE7"

#acts:

A;%C! Ind&strial Corporation filed a 5ond with respect to the writ of attachment iss&ed 5)

the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( against %ariano !ng and several defendants in another case. In

the said 5ond, A;%C! and petitioner $r&dential


35/62

9nder ection + of ;&le B3 of the 01 ;evised ;&les of Co&rt, certiorari sho&ld 5e instit&ted

within a period of siGt) 'B4( da)s from notice of the 6&dgment, order or resol&tion so&ght to 5e

assailed. The B4/da) period is deemed reasona5le and s&fficient time for a part) to m&ll over and

to prepare a petition asserting grave a5&se of discretion 5) a lower co&rt. The period was

specificall) set to avoid an) &nreasona5le dela) that wo&ld violate the constit&tional rights of the

parties to a speed) disposition of their case. #or these reasons, the B4/da) period o&ght to 5e

considered ineGtendi5le.

#&rther, ;&les of proced&re prescri5ing the time within which certain acts m&st 5e done or

certain proceedings taen, are a5sol&tel) indispensa5le to the prevention of needless dela)s and

the orderl) and speed) discharge of 6&dicial 5&siness. trict compliance therewith is th&s

mandator) and imperative.

7owever, the ;&les of $roced&re ma) 5e relaGed Lfor the most pers&asive of reasons.M

Concomitant to a li5eral application of s&ch r&les sho&ld 5e an effort on the part of the

part) invoing li5eralit) to at least proffer a reason for its fail&re to compl) therewith. $r&dential

however failed to pers&ade the Co&rt to allow eGtension of time to appeal.


36/62

D6AE C-@,6 &


37/62

demanding o&t/of/co&rt settlement of $0,444,444.44.

N&ne , 0- Q Fillie filed a complaint for damages 5efore the $hilippine co&rts. 7e had two

ca&ses of action: '0( the sha55) and h&miliating treatment he received from petitionerHs

emplo)ees at the an #rancisco Airport which ca&sed him eGtreme em5arrassment and social

h&miliation and '-( the slashing of his l&ggage and the loss of personal effects amo&nting to

93,804.44.

#or its part, 9nited Airlines moved to dismiss the complaint on the gro&nd that it was filed o&t of

time. 9nder Art. - of the Farsaw Convention, the right to damages shall 5e eGting&ished if an

action is not 5ro&ght within - )ears. 7owever, the second paragraph of the said provision stated

that the method of calc&lating the period of limitation shall 5e determined 5) the law of the co&rt

to which the case is s&5mitted. It is FillieHs position that o&r r&les on interr&ption of prescriptive

period sho&ld appl). Fhen he sent his letters of demand, the -/)ear period was tolled, giving

him ample time to file his complaint.

The trial co&rt ordered the dismissal of the case, holding that Art. -'-( refers not to the local

for&mHs r&les in interr&pting the prescriptive period 5&t onl) to the r&les of determining the time

in which the action was deemed commenced 'meaning LfiledM(. Fillie filed his motion for

reconsideration of the order of dismissal onl) on the 0+th da). The trial co&rt denied his motion

and - da)s later Fillie filed his notice of appeal. 9nited Airlines this time contended that the

notice of appeal was filed 5e)ond the 03/da) reglementar) period and sho&ld therefore 5e

dismissed. The CA, however, too cognizance of the case in the interest of 6&stice and r&led in

favo&r of respondent. 7ence, this petition for certiorari.

7eld:

ection 0 of ;&le +3 of the %(() 'ules of Civil Procedureprovides that a part) ma) appeal 5)

certiorari, from a 6&dgment of the Co&rt of Appeals, 5) filing with the &preme Co&rt a petition

for certiorari, within fifteen '03( da)s from notice of 6&dgment or of the denial of his motion for

reconsideration filed in d&e time G G G G This ;&le however sho&ld not 5e interpreted as to

sacrifice the s&5stantial right of the appellant in the sophisticated altar of technicalities with


38/62

impairment of the sacred principles of 6&stice.1 $an American Forld Airwa)s, Inc. v.Espirit&,

"o. @/83+40, -4 Nan&ar) 01B, B C;A 8B.J It sho&ld 5e 5orne in mind that te real purpose

beind te limitation o( te period o( appeal is to (orestall or avoid an unreasonable dela*

in te administration o( ustice. Th&s, we have r&led that dela) in the filing of a notice of

appeal does not 6&stif) the dismissal of the appeal where the circ&mstances of the case show that

there is no intent to dela* te administration o( ustice on te part o( appellantLs counsel)2

De las Alas v.Co&rt of Appeals, "o. @/8244B, 0B %a) 012, 28 C;A -44 American 7ome

Ass&rance Compan) v.Co&rt of Appeals, "o. @/+34-B, 0- "ovem5er 020, 04 C;A 024.J or

when there are no s&5stantial rights affected, %argate v.Co&rt of Appeals, "o. @/+-8BB, 03

Decem5er 02-, 00 C;A -3.J or when appellants co&nsel committed a mistae in the

comp&tation of the period of appeal, an error not attri5&ta5le to negligence or 5ad faith.04

Ibid.JU U

In the instant case, respondent filed his notice of appeal two '-( da)s later than the prescri5ed

period. Altho&gh his co&nsel failed to give the reason for the dela), we are inclined to give d&e

co&rse to his appeal d&e to the &ni>&e and pec&liar facts of the case and the serio&s >&estion of

law it poses. In the now almost trite 5&t still good principle, tecnicalit*) wen it deserts its

proper o((ice as an aid to ustice and becomes its !reat indrance and cie( enem*) deserves

scant consideration.


39/62


40/62

respondent 6&dge in an order dated N&l) -+, 01, which was received 5) Att). Annang on N&l)

-B, 01.

!n N&l) 80, 01, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal together with the cash appeal 5ond and

also a motion for eGtension of time to file a record on appeal. *oth were dated N&l) 84, 01, and

5oth were denied 5) the respondent 6&dge on N&l) 80, 01, for having 5een filed o&t of time.

I9E:

Fhether or not the appeal ma) 5e considered even if filed o&t of time.

;&ling:

$etitioner contends that the personal service made &pon her on %arch 0, 01, was ineffect&al

5eca&se she had an attorne) of record and the respondent 6&dge did not order that the decision 5e

served &pon the part) herself. ';&le 08, ec. 8, ;&les of Co&rt $alad vs. C&i, -2 $hil. ++ 00+J

"otor vs. Daza, et al., 1B $hil. 234 0+BJ %ata vs. @egarda, @/02+0, Nan. 80, 0B8, 1 C;A

--1.( $etitioner claimed d&ring the hearing that the time sho&ld 5e reconed from April 0+,

01, when she gave a cop) of the decision to her new law)er, Att). Annang who s&5se>&entl)

filed the pleading aforementioned on April 01, 01. #rom this assertion it wo&ld logicall)

follow that the notice of appeal as well as the motion for an eGtension of time to file a record of

appeal which were filed on N&l) 80, 01, were well within the reglementar) period.

9pon the other hand the respondents aver that the personal service of the decision on the

petitioner on %arch 0, 01, was an effective service and therefore that date sho&ld 5e &sed for

reconing the 84/da) period within which to perfect an appeal.'iego vs. 'iego, @/--38 0, ept.

-8, 0BB, 02 C;A 0 is invoed to s&pport this contention. 7owever, the ;iego case is not in

point 5eca&se in that case it was clear that it was 5) the order of the trial co&rt that the notice of

hearing of the motion to dismiss was served on the plaintiffs. 'At p. +.(

There is merit in petitioners contention that the 84/da) period within which to appeal sho&ld 5e

co&nted, not from %arch 0, 01, 5&t from April 0+, 01. 7owever, we do not have to decide

the instant case on this point. #or even ass&ming that the 84/da) period sho&ld 5e co&nted from


41/62

%arch 0, 01, the dela) of fo&r da)s in filing a notice of appeal and a motion for an eGtension

of time to file a record on appeal can 5e eGc&sed on the 5asis of e>&it) and considering that the

record on appeal is now with the respondent 6&dge.


42/62

D6AE C-@,6 &6JE")$etitioner,

vs.

PE-P7E -: 6AE PA


43/62


44/62

he sho&ld have filed it on %a) 2, -44B. Instead, he did so onl) on %a) 00, -44B, that is, 8 da)s

late.

Fe find that the CA correctl) r&led that the petition for review was filed o&t of time 5ased on

o&r clarification in A.%. "o. 44/-/0+/C that the 03/da) eGtension period pra)ed for sho&ld 5e

taced to the original period and commences immediatel) after the eGpiration of s&ch

period.Th&s, co&nting 03 da)s from the eGpiration of the period which was on %a) 0, -441, the

petition filed on N&ne 3, -441 was alread) two da)s late. 7owever, we find the circ&mstances

o5taining in this case to merit the li5eral application of the r&le in the interest of 6&stice and fair

pla).

"ota5l), the petition for review was alread) filed on N&ne 3, -441, which was long 5efore the CA

iss&ed its ;esol&tion dated eptem5er -0, -441 dismissing the petition for review for 5eing filed

o&t of time. There was no showing that respondent s&ffered an) material in6&r) or his ca&se was

pre6&diced 5) reason of s&ch dela). %oreover, the ;TC decision which was so&ght to 5e

reversed in the petition for review filed in the CA had affirmed the %TC 6&dgment convicting

petitioner of direct assa&lt, hence, the petition involved no less than petitionerHs li5ert). Fe do

not find an)thing on record that shows petitioners deli5erate intent to dela) the final disposition

of the case as he had filed the petition for review within the eGtended period so&ght, altho&gh

erroneo&sl) comp&ted. These circ&mstances sho&ld have 5een taen into consideration for the

CA not to dismiss the petition o&tright.

Fe have r&led that 5eing a few da)s late in the filing of the petition for review does not

a&tomaticall) warrant the dismissal thereof. And even ass&ming that a petition for review is filed

a few da)s late, where strong considerations of s&5stantial 6&stice are manifest in the petition, we

ma* relax te strin!ent application o( tecnical rules in te exercise o( our e?uit*

urisdiction.

Co&rts sho&ld not 5e so strict a5o&t proced&ral lapses that do not reall) impair the proper

administration of 6&stice.After all, the higher o56ective of proced&ral r&le is to ins&re that the

s&5stantive rights of the parties are protected.@itigations sho&ld, as m&ch as possi5le, 5e decided

on the merits and not on technicalities. Ever) part)/litigant m&st 5e afforded ample opport&nit)


45/62

for the proper and 6&st determination of his case, free from the &naccepta5le plea of

technicalities.

P,-CE&@,7 E,,-, o 7itis Pendencia

G.,. >o. 1$F24$ Jul* 20) 2011

GE-,GE 7E->,& ". @M7E)$etitioner,

vs.

C>-G P,B &EE7-PME>6 C-,P-,6);espondent.

>6ECE&E>6"

!n Nan&ar) +, -444, the parties entered into a Contract of @ease where5) the petitioner agreed to

lease, for a period of two '-( )ears starting from Nan&ar) 0B, -444, an eight h&ndred siGt) '2B4(/

s>&are/meter prime lot located in !rtigasCenter, $asig Cit) owned 5) the respondent. The

respondent ac>&ired the s&56ect lot from !rtigasR Co. @td. $artnership thro&gh a Deed of

A5sol&te ale, s&56ect to the following conditions: '0( that no shopping arcades or retail stores,

resta&rants, etc. shall 5e allowed to 5e esta5lished on the propert), eGcept with the prior written

consent from !rtigasR Co. @td. $artnership and '-( that the respondent and=or its s&ccessors/in/

interest shall 5ecome mem5er=s of the !rtigasCenter Association, Inc. '$ssociation(, and shall

a5ide 5) its r&les and reg&lations.

!n !cto5er 04, -444, 5efore the lease contract eGpired, the respondent filed an &nlawf&l detainer

case against the petitioner 5efore the %etropolitan Trial Co&rt '*+C(/*ranch B2, $asig Cit),

doceted as Civil Case "o. 242+. The respondent &sed as a gro&nd for e6ectment the petitionerHs

violation of stip&lations in the lease contract regarding the &se of the propert). 9nder this


46/62

contract, the petitioner shall &se the leased lot as a paring space for light vehicles and as a site

for a small driversH canteen,and ma) not &tilize the s&56ect premises for other p&rposes witho&t

the respondentHs prior written consent. The petitioner, however, constr&cted resta&rant 5&ildings

and other commercial esta5lishments on the lot, witho&t first sec&ring the re>&ired written

consent from the respondent, and the necessar) permits from the Association and the !rtigasR

Co. @td. $artnership. The petitioner also s&5leased the propert) to vario&s merchants/tenants in

violation of the lease contract.

The %TC/*ranch B2 decided the e6ectment case in favor of the respondent. The ;TC/*ranch

-B1 granted the petitionerHs motion, there5) reversing and setting aside the %TC/*ranch B2

decision. &urin! te pendenc* o( te petition (or review) te respondent (iled on Ma* 3)

2002 anoter case (or unlaw(ul detainer a!ainst te petitioner be(ore te M6C95ranc F1 ,

$asig Cit). The case was doceted as Civil Case "o. -04.This time, the respondent &sed as a

gro&nd for e6ectment the eGpiration of the partiesH lease contract.

!n Decem5er +, -44-, the %TC/*ranch 10 rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. !n

appeal, the ;TC/*ranch B2 reversed and set aside the decision of the %TC/*ranch 10, on te

!round o( litispendentia. Aggrieved 5) the reversal, the respondent filed a $etition for ;eview

&nder ;&le +- of the ;&les of Co&rt with the CA. CA affirmed the decision of %TC/*ranch 10.

I9E:

Fhether or not the case 5e dismissed on the gro&nd of litispendentia.

6AE C-@,6;" ,@7G

+e disa!ree wit te petitioner and (ind tat tere is no litispendentia.

As a gro&nd for the dismissal of a civil action, litispendentiarefers to a sit&ation where two

actions are pending 5etween the same parties for the same ca&se of action, so that one of them

5ecomes &nnecessar) and veGatio&s.

itispendentiaeGists when the following re>&isites are present: identit) of the parties in the two

actions s&5stantial identit) in the ca&ses of action and in the reliefs so&ght 5) the parties and


47/62

the identit) 5etween the two actions sho&ld 5e s&ch that an) 6&dgment that ma) 5e rendered in

one case, regardless of which part) is s&ccessf&l, wo&ld amo&nt to res judicatain the other.

In the present case, the partiesH 5one of contention is whether Civil Case "os. 242+ and -04

involve the same ca&se of action. The petitioner arg&es that the ca&ses of action are similar,

while the respondent arg&es otherwise. If an identit), or s&5stantial identit), of the ca&ses of

action in 5oth cases eGist, then the second complaint for &nlawf&l detainer ma) 5e dismissed on

the gro&nd of litispendentia.

+e rule tat Civil Case >os. 8084 and /210 involve di((erent causes o( action.


48/62

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,7 E,,-, D7itisPendencia

G, 18$F30

Jesse ap)petitioner

vs.

Court o( ppeals) respondent

#acts:

!n Nan&ar) , -44+, petitioner Nesse ap 'ap( filed a complaint against respondents Eliza Ch&a

'Ch&a( and Evel)n Te 'Te( with the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of %aati Cit) principall)

pra)ing for the cancellation or discharge of several checs that he drew against his acco&nt with

the *an of the $hilippine Islands '*$I(. apHs complaint was doceted as Civil Case "o. 4+/

484 and raffled to *ranch BB.

ap alleged that he p&rchased several real properties thro&gh Te, a real estate 5roer, and as

pa)ment, delivered to her a n&m5er of checs either pa)a5le to her, the propert) owners or to the

vario&s individ&als who agreed to finance his ac>&isitions. 7e agreed to effect pa)ment in s&ch

manner on TeHs claim that this will eGpedite the transfer of the titles in his favor.

Armed with the foregoing narration, Ch&a moved for the dismissal of Civil Case "o. 4+/484 on

the twin gro&nds of litis pendentiaand for&m shopping. Ch&a averred that ap violated the r&le

against for&m shopping when he failed to inform the ;TC of %aati Cit) of Civil Case "o. B-8B

and the pendenc) of his appeal of the decision rendered therein. The elements of litis pendentia


49/62

eGist, and for&m shopping as the logical conse>&ence thereof, considering that the two '-( cases

arose from the same set of facts and involve the same parties.

ap &rges this Co&rt to reverse and set aside the CAHs dismissal of his complaint against

Ch&a and Te, claiming that he is not g&ilt) of for&m shopping as the alleged eGistence of litis

pendentiais 5elied 5) the incompara5le ca&ses of action he and Ch&a advanced in the separate

complaints the) initiated against each other. ap claimed that his pra)er for the cancellation or

discharge of the s&56ect checs entails a determination of their validit) and on whether a valid

consideration eGists for their iss&ance, which is immaterial or irrelevant in determining whether

he sho&ld 5e lia5le for the amo&nts that Ch&a released to Te and Dimalanta.

I9E:

Fhether or not the dismissal of the case on the gro&nd of litis pendentia is proper.

;&ling:

itis pendentiaas a gro&nd for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that sit&ation

wherein another action is pending 5etween the same parties for the same ca&se of action, s&ch

that the second action 5ecomes &nnecessar) and veGatio&s. The &nderl)ing principle of litis

pendentiais the theor) that a part) is not allowed to veG another more than once regarding the

same s&56ect matter and for the same ca&se of action. This theor) is fo&nded on the p&5lic

polic) that the same s&56ect matter sho&ld not 5e the s&56ect of controvers) in co&rts more than

once, in order that possi5le conflicting 6&dgments ma) 5e avoided for the sae of the sta5ilit) of

the rights and stat&s of persons.

The re>&isites of litis pendentia are: 'a( the identit) of parties, or at least s&ch as

representing the same interests in 5oth actions '5( the identit) of rights asserted and relief

pra)ed for, the relief 5eing fo&nded on the same facts and 'c( the identit) of the two cases s&ch


50/62

that 6&dgment in one,

regardless of which part) is s&ccessf&l, wo&ld amo&nt to res judicatain the other.B0BJ

This Co&rt taes note of the fact that ap filed his complaint for the ann&lment of the

checs he iss&ed to Ch&a after he was ad6&dged 5) the ;TC of


51/62


52/62

D6AE C-@,6 &&E>6o. 18401# :ebruar* 8) 2012

"P-@"E" M,- P. M," and J-"E: 7E7)$etitioners,

vs.

CAE,-> PA6") C-,P.) and >G, 5E77-

C->CEPC ,EG7 I C,@);espondents.

6e :acts

;ecords disclose po&ses %arasigan were operators of a gasoline station in %ontal5an, ;izal,

while Chevron is a corporation engaged in the 5&siness of refining, man&fact&ring, storing,

distri5&ting, and mareting of f&els, l&5ricants and other petrole&m prod&cts. po&ses %arasigan

and Chevron entered into a dealership and distri5&torship agreement wherein the former can

p&rchase petrole&m prod&cts from the latter on credit. To complete said agreement, po&ses

%arasigan eGec&ted deeds of real estate mortgage over their properties, as collateral, in favor of

Chevron.

po&ses %arasigan eGceeded their credit line and owed Chevron the amo&nt of $ 0-,413,-B0.4-.

po&ses %arasigan failed to pa) the o5ligation despite oral and written demands from Chevron.

Th&s, Chevron thro&gh its co&nsel, the Angara A5ello Concepcion ;egala and Cr&z

'ACC;A@AF(, initiated foreclos&re proceedings 5) filing a petition for eGtra6&dicial

foreclos&re against the real estate mortgages eGec&ted 5) po&ses %arasigan in favor of

Chevron.

&5se>&entl), on "ovem5er 1, 03, Chevron filed a complaint 'Civil Case "o. 3/0B0 for

"um o( Mone*entitled CalteG $hilippines, Inc. v. ps. %ariano $. %arasigan and %areal

Corporation( against po&ses %arasigan 5efore the ;TC, *ranch 08B, %aati Cit) ';TCQ

%aati( to recover the deficienc) in the amo&nt of $ 1,BB1,022.04. Chevron 5asicall) alleged


53/62

therein that po&ses %arasiganHs o&tstanding o5ligation as of !cto5er 03, 03 was $

1,BB1,022.04 and that said o5ligation remained &npaid.

In their Answer, po&ses %arasigan mainl) alleged that the) were greatl) pre6&diced 5eca&se the

foreclos&re sales on the s&56ect mortgaged properties were illegal and that the 5id price of the

%&lana) propert) in partic&lar was shocingl) low

Chevron, ACC;AI" and ACC;A@AF then filed their Answer with Comp&lsor) Co&nterclaim

alleging, among others, that the foreclos&re sale was cond&cted in accordance with law and that

the complaint in Civil Case "o. -++2/< violated the r&le on for&m shopping and litispendentia.

;TC/


54/62

shoppingS An affirmative answer to these partic&lar >&estions wo&ld necessaril) mean that there

wo&ld 5e no need to disc&ss, m&ch less, resolve all the other iss&es raised in this petition.

@itispendentia is a @atin term, which literall) means a pending s&it and is vario&sl) referred to

in some decisions as lispendens and a&ter action pendant. As a gro&nd for the dismissal of a civil

action, it refers to the sit&ation where two actions are pending 5etween the same parties for the

same ca&se of action, so that one of them 5ecomes &nnecessar) and veGatio&s. It is 5ased on the

polic) against m&ltiplicit) of s&its.

@itispendentia re>&ires the conc&rrence of the following re>&isites: '0( identit) of parties, or at

least s&ch parties as those representing the same interests in 5oth actions '-( identit) of rights

asserted and reliefs pra)ed for, the reliefs 5eing fo&nded on the same facts and '8( identit) with

respect to the two preceding partic&lars in the two cases, s&ch that an) 6&dgment that ma) 5e

rendered in the pending case, regardless of which part) is s&ccessf&l, wo&ld amo&nt to res

6&dicata in the other case.

In the case at 5ench, all the re>&isites of litispendentia are present. The first element, identit) of

parties, or at least representing the same interest in 5oth actions, eGists. The Co&rt agrees with

the r&ling of the CA that Chevron and po&ses %arasigan are the same parties in the ;TC/

%aati Case and the ;TC/&estiona5l), the plaintiff and the defendants in the

;TC/%aati Case are Chevron and po&ses %arasigan as well as %areal Co., Inc., respectivel).

!n the other hand, the plaintiffs in the ;TC/&alif) &nder the first re>&isite. Fhat is important here is that the principal parties Q Chevron

and po&ses %arasigan Q are the same in 5oth cases. The Co&rt held:

In this case, the first re>&isite, identit) of parties or at least s&ch as represent the same interest in

5oth actions, is present. The Co&rt of Appeals correctl) r&led that the fact that there is no

a5sol&te identit) of parties in 5oth cases will not precl&de the application of the r&le of


55/62

litispendentia, since onl) s&5stantial and not a5sol&te identit) of parties is re>&ired for

litispendentiato lie.


56/62

P,-CE&@,7 E,,-, & & MCE&) ctin! Jud!e

o( te ,e!ional 6rial Court o( 7as Pias Cit*) 5ranc 2##);espondents.

$etitionerHs fail&re to implead the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent not so grave as to

warrant dismissal of the petition

petitioner rectified his error 5) moving for reconsideration and filing an Amended $etition,

impleading the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent.

6e Case

This is a petition for review0of the ;esol&tions dated 04 %arch -448 and !cto5er -448 of the

Co&rt of Appeals in CA/


57/62

F7E;E#!;E, in the light of the foregoing, the Co&rt r&les that the prosec&tion failed to

esta5lish the g&ilt of the acc&sed 5e)ond reasona5le do&5t in Criminal Cases "os. +/348B and

+/3481, and these cases are ordered DI%IED.

Criminal Cases "os. +/3482 and -+8- sho&ld 5e set for f&rther trial.

! !;DE;ED.

The prosec&tion did not appeal the trial co&rtHs !rder. !n 3 N&l) -440, petitioner filed with the

trial co&rt a %otion for Correction of Clerical Error,alleging that in the dispositive portion of the

!rder, Criminal Case "o. +/3482 sho&ld have 5een dismissed instead of Criminal Case "o. +/

3481, which sho&ld have 5een the case set for f&rther trial . $ etitioner maintained that there was a

t)pographical error in the dispositive portion considering that in the 5od) of the !rder, the trial

co&rt r&led that the prosec&tion failed to prove 5e)ond reasona5le do&5t the g&ilt of petitioner in

the charges for 7omicide and #r&strated 7omicide.

!n -B #e5r&ar) -44-, respondent Acting N&dge *onifacioanz %aceda denied the motion,

holding that the alleged error was s&5stantial in nat&re which affected the ver) merit of the case.

$etitioner moved for reconsideration, which respondent N&dge denied on -8 N&l) -44-.

!n -0 A&g&st -44-, petitioner filed with the Co&rt of Appeals a $etition for Certiorari and

$rohi5ition with $ra)er for a Temporar) ;estraining !rder or Frit of $reliminar) In6&nction.

$etitioner so&ght to set aside the !rders dated -B #e5r&ar) -44- and -8 N&l) -44- of respondent

N&dge.

!n -8 A&g&st -44-, the Co&rt of Appeals dismissed the petition for fail&re to s&5mit with the

petition a clear d&plicate original or a certified tr&e cop) of the assailed !rder dated -8 N&l)

-44-, and for fail&re of petitionerHs co&nsel to indicate his c&rrent official receipt n&m5er and

date of pa)ment of the c&rrent Integrated *ar of the $hilippines mem5ership d&es, p&rs&ant to

C *ar %atter "o. -21

$etitioner moved for reconsideration, which the Co&rt of Appeals granted. In a ;esol&tion dated

00 Decem5er -44-, the Co&rt of Appeals directed petitioner to implead the $eople of the

$hilippines as respondent. !n 04 %arch -448, the Co&rt of Appeals dismissedthe petition for

fail&re of petitioner to compl) with the resol&tion.1!n 0 %arch -448, petitioner filed an
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_160610_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_160610_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_160610_2009.html#fnt7


58/62

!mni5&s %otion for ;econsideration and %otion to Admit Amended $etition, which the Co&rt

of Appeals dismissed. 7ence, this petition.

6e


59/62

In Vda.de%ang&erra v. ;isos, where the petition for certiorari filed with the Co&rt of Appeals

failed to implead the $eople of the $hilippines as an indispensa5le part), the Co&rt held:

It is &ndisp&ted that in their petition for certiorari 5efore the CA, respondents failed to implead

the $eople of the $hilippines as a part) thereto. *eca&se of this, the petition was o5vio&sl)

defective. As provided in ection 3, ;&le 004 of the ;evised ;&les of Criminal $roced&re, all

criminal actions are prosec&ted &nder the direction and control of the p&5lic prosec&tor.

Therefore, it 5ehooved the petitioners 'respondents herein( to implead the $eople of the

$hilippines as respondent in the CA case to ena5le the olicitor &ent compliance 5) filing an

Amended $etition, impleading the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent. Technicalities ma) 5e

set aside when the strict and rigid application of the r&les will fr&strate rather than promote

6&stice.


60/62

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,7 E,,-, Do. 14$F44 Marc $) 200$

,-5E,6 G. &E G7


61/62

involved the n&llification of the chec amo&nting to $34,444. he insisted that the amo&nt was

o&tside the ;TCHs 6&risdiction, th&s, it co&ld not possi5l) tae cognizance of the case.

;espondent added that the ;TC did not err in dismissing the complaintbecause rcia!a) as an

indispensable part*) was not impleaded.

I9E.

Fhether or not, the ;TC has 6&risdiction over the complaint filed 5) herein petitioner and

Fhether or not, the co&rt acted with grave a5&se of discretion in dismissing the case on the

gro&nd of fail&re to implead an indispensa5le part).

;9@I"


62/62

6&dicial power. There, we r&led that when an indispensa5le part) is not 5efore the co&rt, the

action sho&ld 5e dismissed.

Documents

Prac 1-Procedural Error