You are on page 1of 114

JUDGMENT

Judgments; To frustrate the winning partys right through dilatory schemes is to frustrate all the efforts,
time and expenditure of the courts, which thereby increases the costs of litigation; All courts are by oath
bound to guard against any scheme calculated to bring about the frustration of the winning partys right,
and to stop any attempt to prolong controversies already resolved with finality.Under the
circumstances, the principle of immutability of a final judgment must now be absolutely and
unconditionally applied against the respondents. They could not anymore be permitted to interminably
forestall the execution of the judgment through their interposition of new petitions or pleadings. Even
as their right to initiate an action in court ought to be fully respected, their commencing SCA Case No.
01-11522 in the hope of securing a favorable ruling despite their case having been already fully and
finally adjudicated should not be tolerated. Their move should not frustrate the enforcement of the
judgment, the fruit and the end of the suit itself. Their right as the losing parties to appeal within the
prescribed period could not defeat the correlative right of the winning party to enjoy at last the finality
of the resolution of her case through execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which would be the life
of the law. To frustrate the winning partys right through dilatory schemes is to frustrate all the efforts,
time and expenditure of the courts, which thereby increases
557

VOL. 655, AUGUST 17, 2011
557
Pahila-Garrido vs. Tortogo
the costs of litigation. The interest of justice undeniably demanded that we should immediately write
finis to the litigation, for all courts are by oath bound to guard against any scheme calculated to bring
about the frustration of the winning partys right, and to stop any attempt to prolong controversies
already resolved with finality. [Pahila-Garrido vs. Tortogo, 655 SCRA 553(2011)]

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Res Judicata; Minute Resolutions; A minute resolution, while not a
precedent relative to strangers to an action, nonetheless binds the parties therein, and calls for res
judicatas application.In Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., 375 SCRA 390 (2002), we declared that a
minute resolution may amount to a final action on the case but it is not a precedent. However, we
continued to state that it can not bind non-parties to the action. Corollary thereto, we can conclude
that a minute resolution, while not a precedent relative to strangers to an action, nonetheless binds the
parties therein, and calls for res judicatas application. Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v.
Valderama, 644 SCRA 299 (2011), is instructive anent the effects of the issuance of a minute resolution,
viz.: It is true that, although contained in a minute resolution, our dismissal of the petition was a
disposition of the merits of the case. When we dismissed the petition, we effectively affirmed the CA
ruling being questioned. As a result, our ruling in that case has already become final. x x x. With respect
to the same subject matter and the same issues concerning the same parties, it constitutes res judicata.
However, if other parties or another subject matter (even with the same parties and issues) is involved,
the minute resolution is not binding precedent. x x x. (Underlining ours) It is therefore clear from the
above that for purposes of the application of res judicata, minute resolutions issued by this Court are as
much precedents as promulgated decisions, hence, binding upon the parties to the action.
Same; Same; Same; Elements of Res Judicata.In Heirs of Maximino Derla v. Heirs of Catalina Derla Vda.
de Hipolito, 648 SCRA 638 (2011), we enumerated the following as the elements of res judicata: a) The
former judgment or order must be final; b) It must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was
rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
524

524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine National Bank vs. Lim
parties at the trial of the case; c) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; and d) There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of
parties, of subject matter and of cause of action. This requisite is satisfied if the two (2) actions are
substantially between the same parties. [Philippine National Bank vs. Lim, 689 SCRA 523(2013)]




Same; Actions; Parties; Indispensable Parties; Definition of Indispensable Parties.Section 7, Rule 3 of
the Revised Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can
be no final determination of an action and who, for this reason, must be joined either as plaintiffs or as
defendants. Jurisprudence further holds that a party is indispensable, not only if he has an interest in
the subject matter of the controversy, but also if his interest is such that a final decree cannot be made
without affecting this interest or without placing the controversy in a situation where the final
determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a person whose
absence disallows the court from making an effective, complete, or equitable determination of the
controversy between or among the contending parties.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The right of a co-owner to file a suit without impleading other co-owners
upheld in several cases.We upheld in several cases the right of a co-owner to file a suit without
impleading other co-owners, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code. We made this ruling in Vencilao,
where the amended complaint for forcible entry and detainer specified that the plaintiff is one of the
heirs who co-owns the disputed properties. In Sering, and Resuena v. Court of Appeals, 454 SCRA 42
(2005) the co-owners who filed the ejectment case did not represent themselves as the exclusive
owners of the property. In Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago, 435 SCRA 690 (2004) the
complaint for quieting of title was brought in behalf of the co-owners precisely to recover lots owned in
common. In Plasabas, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint for recovery of title to property (accion
reivindicatoria) that they are the sole owners of the property in litigation, but acknowledged during the
trial that the property is co-owned with other parties, and the plaintiffs have been authorized by the co-
owners to pursue the case on the latters behalf.
234

234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Marmo vs. Anacay
Same; Same; Same; Where the suit is brought by a co-owner without repudiating the co-ownership,
then the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of the other co-owners and may proceed without
impleading the other co-owners.We read these cases to collectively mean that where the suit is
brought by a co-owner, without repudiating the co-ownership, then the suit is presumed to be filed for
the benefit of the other co-owners and may proceed without impleading the other co-owners. However,
where the co-owner repudiates the co-ownership by claiming sole ownership of the property or where
the suit is brought against a co-owner, his co-owners are indispensable parties and must be impleaded
as party-defendants, as the suit affects the rights and interests of these other co-owners.
Same; Same; Same; In Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, 508 SCRA 469 (2006), the co-owners are not
even necessary parties for a complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without their participation
since the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of all.Respondents children, as co-owners of the
subject property, are not indispensable parties to the resolution of the case. We held in Carandang v.
Heirs of De Guzman, 508 SCRA 469 (2006), that in cases like this, the co-owners are not even necessary
parties, for a complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit
is presumed to be filed for the benefit of all. Thus, the respondents children need not be impleaded as
party-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2919-03. [Marmo vs. Anacay, 606 SCRA 232(2009)]




Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Interlocutory Orders; It is a settled rule that orders
granting execution are interlocutory orders; hence, the petitioners should have filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.The petition filed in this case is one for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court. Petitions filed under this rule bring up for review errors of judgment. It is an ordinary
appeal and the petition must only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth and
discussed. The present petition, however, assails the RTC order of execution dated December 21, 2009
and alias writ of execution dated May 17, 2010. It is a settled rule that orders granting execution are
interlocutory orders; hence, the petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Same; Same; Same; Appeals; The Supreme Court, in the interest of equity or when justice demands, may
interchangeably treat an appeal as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court,
and vice versa.In Shugo Noda & Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 620 (1994), the Court
acknowledged that, in the past, it considered an appeal to be a proper remedy when it is perceived that
the order varies, or may not be in consonance with, the essence of the judgment. In such case,
considerations of justice and equity dictate that there be some remedy available to the aggrieved party.
Likewise, the Court, in the interest of equity or when justice demands, may interchangeably treat an
appeal as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, and vice versa.
Same; Civil Procedure; Execution of Judgment; Writs of Execution; Once a judgment becomes final and
executory, all that remains is the execution of the decision which is a matter of right. The prevailing
party is entitled to a writ of execution, the issuance of which is the
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
690

690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Golez vs. Navarro
trial courts ministerial duty.As a rule, once a judgment becomes final and executory, all that remains
is the execution of the decision which is a matter of right. The prevailing party is entitled to a writ of
execution, the issuance of which is the trial courts ministerial duty. The writ of execution, however,
must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated. It must conform,
more particularly, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.
Same; Same; Same; An order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment, or for that matter,
exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.Clearly, the RTC exceeded its authority when it insisted on
applying its own construal of the dispositive portion of the CA Decision when its terms are explicit and
need no further interpretation. It would also be inequitable for the petitioners to pay and for the
respondents, who did not appeal the CA decision or questioned the deletion of the 12% per annum
interest, to receive more than what was awarded by the CA. The assailed RTC order of execution dated
December 21, 2009 and the alias writ of execution dated May 17, 2010 are, therefore, void. Time and
again, it has been ruled that an order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment, or for that
matter, exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity. [Golez vs. Navarro, 689 SCRA 689(2013)]




Remedial Law; Appeals; Certiorari; Motion to Dismiss; The denial of a motion to dismiss, as an
interlocutory order, cannot be the subject of an appeal until a final judgment or order is rendered in the
main case. An aggrieved party, however, may assail an interlocutory order through a petition for
certiorari.The denial of a motion to dismiss, as an interlocutory order, cannot be the subject of an
appeal until a final judgment or order is rendered in the main case. An aggrieved party, however, may
assail an interlocutory order through a petition for certiorari but only when it is shown that the court
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
706

706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lim vs. Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station
Same; Civil Procedure; Certification Against Forum Shopping; Verification; In PNCC Skyway Traffic
Management and Security Division Workers Organization (PSTMSDWO) v. PNCC Skyway Corporation,
613 SCRA 28 (2010), the Supreme Court considered the subsequent execution of a board resolution
authorizing the Union President to represent the union in a petition filed against PNCC Skyway
Corporation as an act of ratification by the union that cured the defect in the petitions verification and
certification against forum shopping.In PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division
Workers Organization (PSTMSDWO) v. PNCC Skyway Corporation, 613 SCRA 28 (2010), we considered
the subsequent execution of a board resolution authorizing the Union President to represent the union
in a petition filed against PNCC Skyway Corporation as an act of ratification by the union that cured the
defect in the petitions verification and certification against forum shopping. We held that assuming
that Mr. Soriano (PSTMSDWOs President) has no authority to file the petition on February 27, 2006, the
passing on June 30, 2006 of a Board Resolution authorizing him to represent the union is deemed a
ratification of his prior execution, on February 27, 2006, of the verification and certificate of non-forum
shopping, thus curing any defects thereof.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping are
not jurisdictional.In any case, it is settled that the requirements of verification and certification against
forum shopping are not jurisdictional. Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations
in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative. Non-
compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective,
and is substantially complied with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of the truth of the
allegations in the complaint or petition, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in
good faith or are true and correct. On the other hand, the certification against forum shopping is
required based on the principle that a party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
remedies in different fora. While the certification requirement is obligatory, non-compliance or a defect
in the certificate could be cured by its subsequent correction or submission under special circumstances
or compelling reasons, or on the ground of substantial compliance. *Lim vs. Court of Appeals,
Mindanao Station, 689 SCRA 705(2013)]






Courts; Judgments; Dispositive Portions; It is basic that when there is a conflict between the dispositive
portion or fallo of a Decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the judgment,
the former prevails over the latterthe fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a
statement ordering nothing.The Armovit Law Firm did not file a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Decision in G.R. No. 90983 to protest the exclusion in the dispositive portion of several items it
specifically prayed for in its pleadings. The Decision thus became final and executory on December 17,
1991. The Armovit Law Firm cannot now ask the trial court, or this Court, to execute the Decision in G.R.
No. 90983 as if these items prayed for were actually granted. The Armovit Law Firm, in
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
555

VOL. 658, OCTOBER 5, 2011
555
The Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit vs. Court of Appeals
insisting on its claim, pins its entire case on the statement in the body of the Decision that we do not
find Atty. Armovits claim for twenty percent of all recoveries to be unreasonable. In this regard, our
ruling in Grageda v. Gomez, 533 SCRA 677 (2007), is enlightening: It is basic that when there is a conflict
between the dispositive portion or fallo of a Decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text
or body of the judgment, the former prevails over the latter. An order of execution is based on the
disposition, not on the body, of the Decision. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order
while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing. Indeed, the foregoing rule is not
without an exception. We have held that where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision
is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will
prevail. x x x.
Same; Same; Same; The confusion created in the case at bar shows yet another reason why mere
pronouncements in bodies of Decisions may not be the subject of executionrandom statements can
easily be taken out of context and are susceptible to different interpretations.The confusion created
in the case at bar shows yet another reason why mere pronouncements in bodies of Decisions may not
be the subject of execution: random statements can easily be taken out of context and are susceptible
to different interpretations. When not enshrined in a clear and definite order, random statements in
bodies of Decisions can still be the subject of another legal debate, which is inappropriate and should
not be allowed in the execution stage of litigation. [The Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit vs. Court of
Appeals, 658 SCRA 554(2011)]






Remedial Law; Actions; Compromise Agreements; A compromise agreement that has been made and
duly approved by the court
_______________

** Additional member per Special Order No. 658.
*** Additional member per Special Order No. 635.
**** Additional member per Special Order No. 664.
* THIRD DIVISION.
789

VOL. 594, JULY 31, 2009
789
Raola vs. Raola
attains the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may be issued unless the
agreement receives the approval of the court where the litigation is pending and compliance with the
terms of the agreement is decreed.A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter already
under litigation is a judicial compromise. Having judicial mandate and entered as its determination of
the controversy, such judicial compromise has the force and effect of a judgment. It transcends its
identity as a mere contract between the parties, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in
accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, a compromise agreement that has been made and duly
approved by the court attains the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may be
issued unless the agreement receives the approval of the court where the litigation is pending and
compliance with the terms of the agreement is decreed. [Raola vs. Raola, 594 SCRA 788(2009)]





Civil Law; Compromise Agreements; A Compromise Agreement intended to resolve a matter already
under litigation is a judicial compromise.A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter
already under litigation is a judicial
_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
1
2

2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation
compromise. Having judicial mandate and entered as its determination of the controversy, such judicial
compromise has the force and effect of a judgment. It transcends its identity as a mere contract
between the parties, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules
of Court.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Moot and Academic; A moot and academic case is one that ceases
to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would
be of no practical value.With the final settlement of the claims of petitioner against herein
respondents, the issues raised in the present petition regarding the propriety of the issuance of writ of
attachment by the trial court and the grave abuse of discretion allegedly committed by the appellate
court in reversing the orders of the trial court, have now become moot and academic. A moot and
academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so
that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. In such cases, there is no actual
substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal
of the petition. [Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation, 653 SCRA
1(2011)]





Civil Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Attorneys; As a general rule, a client is bound by the acts of his
counsel, including even the latters mistakes and negligence. But where such mistake or neglect would
result in serious injustice to the client, a departure from this rule is warranted.It is true that
petitioners failure to file their motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period rendered the
CA Decision dated May 30, 2002 final and executory. For all intents and purposes, said Decision should
now be immutable and unalterable; however, the Court relaxes this rule in order to serve substantial
justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or
compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
The explanation of petitioners counsel for the delayed filing of the motion for reconsideration was that
their law firm secretary failed to inform the court of their change of address. This, of course, is not a
valid excuse. As a general rule, a client is bound by the acts of his counsel, including even the latters
mistakes and negligence. But where such mistake or neglect would result in serious injustice to the
client, a departure from this rule is warranted. To cling to the general rule is to condone rather than
rectify a serious injustice to petitioners whose only fault was to repose his faith and entrust his
innocence to his lawyer.
Same; Same; Courts; The Court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule
whenever the purposes of justice requires it because what should guide judicial action is that a party is
given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose
life, honor, or property on mere technicalities.The Court has the power to except a particular case
from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice requires it because what should guide
judicial action is that a party is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his
92

92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Meneses vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor, or property on mere technicalities.
Judgments; Pleadings and Practice; A judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant, who
is the party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim; or to obtain a declaratory
relief.Rule 34, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, provides that a judgment on the pleadings is proper
when an answer fails to render an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
partys pleading. The essential question is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings. A
judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant, who is the party seeking to recover upon a
claim, counterclaim or cross-claim; or to obtain a declaratory relief.
Same; Just Compensation; In computing the just compensation for expropriation proceedings, it is the
value of the land at the time of the taking [or October 21, 1972, the effectivity date of P.D. No. 27], not
at the time of the rendition of judgment, which should be taken into consideration.Respondent
correctly cited the case of Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 444 SCRA 176 (2004), where the
Court ruled that in computing the just compensation for expropriation proceedings, it is the value of
the land at the time of the taking [or October 21, 1972, the effectivity date of P.D. No. 27], not at the
time of the rendition of judgment, which should be taken into consideration.
Same; Same; The seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of P.D. No. 27
but would take effect on the payment of just compensation.It should also be pointed out, however,
that in the more recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Natividad, 458 SCRA 441 (2005), the
Court categorically ruled: the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of
P.D. No. 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation. Under Section 17 of R.A. No.
6657, the following factors are considered in determining just compensation, to wit: Sec.17.
Determination of Just Compensation.In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the
land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the
owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered.
The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-workers and by the
Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government
financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.
93

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 23, 2006
93
Meneses vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Same; Same; Events have rendered the applicability of P.D. No. 27 inequitable. Thus, the provisions of
R.A. No. 6657 should apply in this case.As previously noted, the property was expropriated under the
Operation Land Transfer scheme of P.D. No. 27 way back in 1972. More than 30 years have passed and
petitioners are yet to benefit from it, while the farmer-beneficiaries have already been harvesting its
produce for the longest time. Events have rendered the applicability of P.D. No. 27 inequitable. Thus,
the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 should apply in this case. [Meneses vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 505
SCRA 90(2006)]






Family Code; Marriages; Summary Judgments; Both the rules on judgment on the pleadings and
summary judgments have no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in
annulment of marriage.But whether it is based on judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment,
the CA was correct in reversing the summary judgment rendered by the trial court. Both the rules on
judgment on the pleadings and summary judgments have no place in cases of declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage and even in annulment of marriage.
Same; Same; Declaration of Nullity of Marriages; Parties; Section 2(a) of the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages makes it the sole right of the
husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage.Under the
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the
marriage. The Rule made it exclusively a right of the spouses by stating: SEC. 2. Petition for declaration
of absolute nullity of void marriages.(a) Who may file.A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Section 2(a) of the Rule makes it the sole
right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of
the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in a
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.While
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed
solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are without
any recourse under the law. They can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale
of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
117

VOL. 574, December 16, 2008
117
Carlos vs. Sandoval
of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the
marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in
a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to cases already commenced before
March 15, 2003 although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code.It is
emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15, 2003
although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new Rule
which became effective on March 15, 2003 is prospective in its application. Thus, the Court held in
Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli, viz.: As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages
under the Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license
for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case; Plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest.The
marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the
Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to who
may bring an action to declare the marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an action for
the declaration of nullity of marriage? We respond in the negative. The absence of a provision in the
Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case. Such
person must appear to be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit,
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest.
For it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the
real party-in-interest.
Civil Law; Property; Succession; The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of
the deceased precludes succession by collateral relatives.Only the presence of descendants,
ascendants or illegitimate children excludes collateral relatives from succeeding to the estate of the
decedent. The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of the deceased
precludes succession by collateral relatives. Conversely, if there are no descendants, ascendants,
illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of
the decedent. [Carlos vs. Sandoval, 574 SCRA 116(2008)]










Actions; Summary Judgments; Words and Phrases; A summary judgment, or accelerated judgment, is a
procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from
the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits on record, or for weeding out sham claims or
defenses at an early stage of the litigation to avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.A
summary judgment, or accelerated judgment, is a procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases
where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and
affidavits on record, or for weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation to
avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. When the pleadings on file show that there are no
genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary
judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily
by applying the law to the material facts.
Same; Same; Same; Partial Summary Judgments; The Rules provide for a partial summary judgment as a
means to simplify the trial process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on the assailed facts,
considering as established those facts which are not in dispute; The partial summary judgment is more
akin to a record of pre-trial, an interlocutory order, rather than a final judgment.The
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
636

636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Business Bank vs. Chua
rendition by the court of a summary judgment does not always result in the full adjudication of all the
issues raised in a case. For these instances, Section 4, Rule 35 of the Rules provides: Section 4. Case not
fully adjudicated on motion.If on motion under this Rule, judgment is not rendered upon the whole
case or for all the reliefs sought and a trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, by
examining the pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel shall ascertain what
material facts exist without substantial controversy and what are actually and in good faith
controverted. It shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial
controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy,
and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just. The facts so specified shall be deemed
established, and the trial shall be conducted on the controverted facts accordingly. This is what is
referred to as a partial summary judgment. A careful reading of this section reveals that a partial
summary judgment was never intended to be considered a final judgment, as it does not *put+ an
end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover
the remedy he sues for. The Rules provide for a partial summary judgment as a means to simplify the
trial process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on the assailed facts, considering as established
those facts which are not in dispute. After this sifting process, the court is instructed to issue an order,
the partial summary judgment, which specifies the disputed facts that have to be settled in the course of
trial. In this way, the partial summary judgment is more akin to a record of pre-trial, an interlocutory
order, rather than a final judgment.
Same; Same; Same; Final Judgment, and Interlocutory Order, Distinguished.The differences
between a final judgment and an interlocutory order are well-established. We said in Denso (Phils.)
Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 280 (1987), that: [A] final judgment or order is one that
finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an
adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares
categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a
judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription.
Once rendered, the task of
637

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010
637
Philippine Business Bank vs. Chua
the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the
litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties next
move . . . and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes final or,
to use the established and more distinctive term, final and executory. x x x x Conversely, an order that
does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Courts task of adjudicating the parties
contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates
that other things remain to be done by the Court, is interlocutory, e.g., an order denying a motion to
dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules x x x Unlike a final judgment or order, which is appealable, as above
pointed out, an interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal
that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.
Same; Same; There can be no doubt that the partial summary judgment envisioned by the Rules is an
interlocutory order that was never meant to be treated separately from the main case.Bearing in mind
these differences, there can be no doubt that the partial summary judgment envisioned by the Rules is
an interlocutory order that was never meant to be treated separately from the main case. As we
explained in Guevarra v. Court of Appeals, 124 SCRA 297 (1983): It will be noted that the judgment in
question is a partial summary judgment. It was rendered only with respect to the private respondents
first and second causes of action alleged in their complaint. It was not intended to cover the other
prayers in the said complaint, nor the supplementary counterclaim filed by the petitioners against the
private respondents, nor the third-party complaint filed by the petitioners against the Security Bank and
Trust Company. A partial summary judgment is not a final or appealable judgment. (Moran, Vol. 2,
1970 Edition, p. 189, citing several cases.) It is merely a pre-trial adjudication that said issues in the case
shall be deemed established for the trial of the case. (Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. II, p. 429.) x x x x
The partial summary judgment rendered by the trial court being merely interlocutory and not a final
judgment, it is puerile to discuss whether the same became final and executory due to the alleged
failure to appeal said judgment within the supposed period of appeal. What the rules contemplate is
that the appeal from the partial summary judgment shall be taken
638

638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Business Bank vs. Chua
together with the judgment that may be rendered in the entire case after a trial is conducted on the
material facts on which a substantial controversy exists. This is on the assumption that the partial
summary judgment was validly rendered, which, as shown above, is not true in the case at bar.
Same; Same; Appeals; The propriety of the summary judgment may be corrected only on appeal or
other direct review, not a petition for certiorari, since it imputes error on the lower courts judgment.
Contrary to PBBs contention, however, certiorari was not the proper recourse for respondent Chua. The
propriety of the summary judgment may be corrected only on appeal or other direct review, not a
petition for certiorari, since it imputes error on the lower courts judgment. It is well-settled that
certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judges findings and
conclusions of law and fact. As we explained in Apostol v. Court of Appeals, 569 SCRA 80 (2008): As a
legal recourse, the special civil action of certiorari is a limited form of review. The jurisdiction of this
Court is narrow in scope; it is restricted to resolving errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.
Indeed, as long as the courts below act within their jurisdiction, alleged errors committed in the exercise
of their discretion will amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by an appeal or a petition for
review.
Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; Due Process; It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on
appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings belowbasic considerations of due process impel
the adoption of this rule.As a final point, we note that respondent Chua has raised with this Court the
issue of the propriety of the partial summary judgment issued by the RTC. Notably, respondent Chua
never raised this issue in his petition for certiorari before the CA. It is well-settled that no question will
be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Basic considerations of due
process impel the adoption of this rule.
Same; Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment,
and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action,
which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency
of the appeal.Taking jurisdiction over this issue now would only result in multiple appeals
639

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010
639
Philippine Business Bank vs. Chua
from a single case which concerns the same, or integrated, causes of action. As we said in Santos v.
People: Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment,
and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action,
which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency
of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case would necessarily be
delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses,
for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him, and
interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. [Philippine Business Bank vs. Chua, 634 SCRA
635(2010)]





Civil Procedure; Summary Judgments; A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; The test of the
propriety of rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of fact as distinguished
from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and [the] moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law. The test of the propriety of rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of
fact, as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. *A+ factual issue raised by a
party is considered as sham when by its nature it is evident that it cannot be proven or it is such that the
party tendering the same has neither any sincere intention nor adequate evidence to prove it. This
usually happens in denials made by defendants merely for the sake of having an issue and thereby
gaining delay, taking advantage of the fact that their answers are not under oath anyway.
Same; Same; Even if the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, a summary judgment is proper so
long as the affidavits, depositions and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues
are not genuine.In determining the genuineness of the issues, and hence the propriety of rendering a
summary judgment, the court is obliged to carefully study and appraise, not the tenor or
_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
524

524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Calubaquib vs. Republic
contents of the pleadings, but the facts alleged under oath by the parties and/or their witnesses in the
affidavits that they submitted with the motion and the corresponding opposition. Thus, it is held that,
even if the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, a summary judgment is proper so long as the
affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues are not
genuine.
Same; Same; The filing of a motion and the conduct of a hearing on the motion are therefore important;
The non-observance of the procedural requirements of filing a motion and conducting a hearing on the
said motion warrants the setting aside of the summary judgment.The filing of a motion and the
conduct of a hearing on the motion are therefore important because these enable the court to
determine if the parties pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support of, or against, the motion are
sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and adequately justify the finding that, as a matter of law,
the claim is clearly meritorious or there is no defense to the action. The non-observance of the
procedural requirements of filing a motion and conducting a hearing on the said motion warrants the
setting aside of the summary judgment. [Calubaquib vs. Republic, 652 SCRA 523(2011)]





Actions; Summary Judgments; Words and Phrases; Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural
technique aimed at weeding
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
193

VOL. 488, APRIL 25, 2006
193
Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank
out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time
involved in a trial; The determinative factor in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or
absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as
amended, except as to the amount of damages, when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment may be allowed.
Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or
defenses at an early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.
Under the Rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact which call
for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise
issues, when the affida-vits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine, then
summary judgment as prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. The determinative factor,
therefore, in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any
material fact.
Same; Same; Same; A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as
distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.A genuine issue is an issue of fact
which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false
claim. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine
issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for. The party who moves for
summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or
that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for
trial. Trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is
clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or
contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial. [Asian Construction and
Development Corporation vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank, 488 SCRA 192(2006)]




Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; An issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.Petitioner
Pineda had ample opportunity to raise before the Court of Appeals the objection on the improper mode
of appeal taken by the heirs of Guevara. This, he failed to do. The issue of improper appeal was raised
only in Pinedas motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals Decision. Hence, this Court cannot
now, for the first time on appeal, pass upon this issue. For an issue cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. In any case, the appeal by the heirs of Guevara also raised the issue regarding the existence of
laches on the part of petitioners as defendants, which is factual in nature as discussed below.
Motions to Dismiss; Laches; Elements; Evidence; Laches is evidentiary in nature which could not be
established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion to dismiss.Well-
settled is the rule that the elements of laches must be proved positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature
which could not be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion
to dismiss. At this stage therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches is premature.
Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given
ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses. The elements of laches are: (1)
conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of
which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainants rights, the complainant
having had knowledge or notice of the defendants conduct as having been afforded an opportunity to
institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would
assert the right in which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
628

628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Pineda vs. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara
in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred.
Same; Same; Same; While the language of par. (h) of Section 1, Rule 16, particularly on the relation of
the words abandoned and otherwise extinguished to the phrase claim or demand deemed set forth
in the plaintiffs pleading is broad enough to include within its ambit the defense of bar by laches, when
a party moves for the dismissal of the complaint based on laches, the trial court must set a hearing on
the motion where the parties shall submit not only their arguments on the questions of law but also
their evidence on the questions of fact involved.In reversing the RTCs order of dismissal, the Court of
Appeals held that laches could not be a ground to dismiss the complaint as it is not enumerated under
Rule 16, Section 1. This is not entirely correct. Under paragraph (h) thereof, where a claim or demand
set forth in the plaintiffs pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished, the
same may be raised in a motion to dismiss. The language of the rule, particularly on the relation of the
words abandoned and otherwise extinguished to the phrase claim or demand deemed set forth in
the plaintiffs pleading is broad enough to include within its ambit the defense of bar by laches.
However, when a party moves for the dismissal of the complaint based on laches, the trial court must
set a hearing on the motion where the parties shall submit not only their arguments on the questions of
law but also their evidence on the questions of fact involved. Thus, being factual in nature, the elements
of laches must be proved or disproved through the presentation of evidence by the parties. As discussed
above, an apparent delay in the filing of a complaint as shown in a pleading does not automatically
warrant the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches.
Same; Same; Same; Prescription; An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to
dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed,
otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on
the merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to dismiss.Neither does the affirmative
defense of prescription alleged in an answer automatically warrant the dismissal of the complaint under
Rule 16. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the
complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already pre-
629

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 14, 2007
629
Pineda vs. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara
scribed. Otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown
trial on the merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to dismiss. Pinedas theory that the
defense of laches should be treated as an affirmative defense of prescription warranting the dismissal of
the complaint is erroneous.
Same; Same; Summary Judgments; The trial court cannot motu proprio decide that summary judgment
on an action is in orderunder the applicable provisions of Rule 35, the defending party or the claimant,
as the case may be, must invoke the rule on summary judgment by filing a motion.There is also no
basis in procedural law to treat the RTCs order of dismissal as a summary judgment. The trial court
cannot motu proprio decide that summary judgment on an action is in order. Under the applicable
provisions of Rule 35, the defending party or the claimant, as the case may be, must invoke the rule on
summary judgment by filing a motion. The adverse party must be notified of the motion for summary
judgment and furnished with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions before hearing is
conducted. More importantly, a summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. [Pineda vs. Heirs of
Eliseo Guevara, 515 SCRA 627(2007)]









Actions; Judgments; Summary Judgments; Words and Phrases; Summary Judgments and Judgments
on the Merits, Distinguished; A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation
of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a
genuine issue for trial.In Tan v. De la Vega, 484 SCRA 538 (2006), citing Narra Integrated Corporation
v. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 781 (2000), the court distinguished summary judgment from judgment on
the pleadings, viz.: The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand,
and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary
judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings,
there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending partys answer to raise an issue.
On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently existi.e. facts are asserted in
the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials
or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answerbut the issues thus arising from the pleadings
are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits, depositions, or admissions. x x x. Simply
stated, what distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment is the presence of
issues in the Answer to the Complaint. When the Answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it does not
deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse partys
pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all, a judgment on
the pleadings is appropriate.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
152

152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Basbas vs. Sayson
On the other hand, when the Answer specifically denies the material averments of the complaint or
asserts affirmative defenses, or in other words raises an issue, a summary judgment is proper provided
that the issue raised is not genuine. A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the
presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does
not constitute a genuine issue for trial.
Same; Co-Ownership; Parties; A co-owner may, by himself alone, bring an action for the recovery of the
co-owned property pursuant to the well-settled principle that in a co-ownership, co-owners may bring
actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners
as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of his co-owners.
Anent the SPA, we find that given the particular circumstances in the case at bar, an SPA is not even
necessary such that its efficacy or the lack of it would not in any way preclude the case from proceeding.
This is because upon Roberto Sr.s death, Roberto Jr., in succession of his father, became a co-owner of
the subject property together with his mother, Beata. As a co-owner, he may, by himself alone, bring an
action for the recovery of the co-owned property pursuant to the well-settled principle that in a co-
ownership, co-owners may bring actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the necessity of
joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed for the
benefit of his co-owners. *Basbas vs. Sayson, 656 SCRA 151(2011)+







Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Immutability of Judgments; Under the doctrine of finality of
judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the
Highest Court of the land.Considering that the CAs June
364

364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Escalante vs. People
24, 2008 Decision and March 4, 2009 Resolution had already attained finality on account of the
petitioners failure to timely file a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45, the Court may no
longer modify the penalty imposed by the lower courts no matter how obvious the error may be.
Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired
finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the
court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. *Escalante vs. People, 688 SCRA 362(2013)+





Remedial Law; Judgments; Finality of Judgments; A decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest court of the land; Exceptions.It is a fundamental legal principle that a
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified
in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and
whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The only exceptions
to the general rule on finality of judgments are the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no
prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable. Indeed, litigation must end and terminate
sometime and somewhere, even at the risk of occasional errors. [Land Bank of the Philippines vs.
Listana, 654 SCRA 559(2011)]






Same; Judgments; Instances when a complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiffs fault.Gomez v.
Alcantara, 579 SCRA 472 (2009), explains that *t+he aforequoted provision enumerates the instances
when a complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiffs fault: (1) if he fails to appear on the date for
the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an
unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules or any order of the court. The
dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily
understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action, unless otherwise provided in the order
of dismissal. Stated differently, the general rule is that dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is to be
regarded as an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action, and the only
exception is
261

VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010
261
PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Milan
when the order of dismissal expressly contains a qualification that the dismissal is without prejudice.
[PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Milan, 617 SCRA 258(2010)]






Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Conclusiveness of Judgments; Under the principle of
conclusiveness of judgment, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court,
as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them.
Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such trial has been given,
the judgment of the court, as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and
those in privity with them. Stated differently, conclusiveness of judgment bars the re-litigation in a
second case of a fact or question already settled in a previous case. [City of Cebu vs. Dedamo, Jr., 689
SCRA 547(2013)]





POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES


Remedial Law; Motion for Reconsideration; Pro Forma Motion; Mere reiteration of issues already
passed upon by the court does not automatically make a motion for reconsideration pro forma;
Instances where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma.We have held that mere
reiteration of issues already passed upon by the court does not automatically make a motion for
reconsideration pro forma. What is essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules. Indeed, in
the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma, the motion was so held because
(1) it was a second motion for reconsideration, or (2) it did not comply with the rule that the motion
must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by the
evidence, or (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in
question was contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party was not given notice thereof. [Gonzales vs.
Commission on Elections, 644 SCRA 761(2011)]




Civil Procedure; Motion for Reconsideration; As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration (MR) is
generally a prohibited pleading; Court does not discount instances when it may authorize the
suspension of the rules of procedure so as to allow the resolution of a second motion for
reconsideration.Indeed, a second MR as a rule, is generally a prohibited pleading. The Court, however,
does not discount instances when it may authorize the suspension of the rules of procedure so as to
allow the resolution of a second motion for reconsideration, in cases of extraordinarily persuasive
reasons such as when the decision is a patent nullity.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
638

638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
University of the East vs. University of the East Employees' Association
Same; Same; The rules of procedure are designed to secure and not to override substantial justice.
Time and again, the Court has upheld the theory that the rules of procedure are designed to secure and
not to override substantial justice. These are mere tools to expedite the decision or resolution of cases,
hence, their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather
than promote substantial justice must be avoided. [University of the East vs. University of the East
Employees' Association, 657 SCRA 637(2011)]




Courts; Judgments; Entry of Judgment; Motions for Reconsideration; It is immaterial that the Entry of
Judgment was made without the Court having first resolved a partys second motion for reconsideration
because the issuance of the entry of judgment is reckoned from the time the parties received a copy of
the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration.It is immaterial that the Entry of Judgment
was made without the Court having first resolved P&Gs second motion for reconsideration. This is
because the issuance of the entry of judgment is reckoned from the time the parties received a copy of
the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration. The filing by P&G of several pleadings after
receipt of the resolution denying its first motion for reconsideration does not in any way bar the finality
or entry of judgment. Besides, to reckon the finality of a judgment from receipt of the denial of the
second motion for reconsideration would be absurd. First, the Rules of Court and the Internal Rules of
the Supreme Court prohibit the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. Second, some crafty
litigants may resort to filing prohibited pleadings just to delay entry of judgment.
Same; Same; It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion
of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court
rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial
enforcement or execution of the judgment.The March 9, 2010 Decision had already attained finality. It
could no longer be set aside or modified. It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final
and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be
made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done is the
purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment. The doctrine of finality of judgment is
grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of
occasional errors, the judgment of adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some
definite date
402

402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Aliviado vs. Procter & Gamble Phils., Inc.
fixed by law. *+, the Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine of immutability of final judgment is
adhered to by necessity notwithstanding occasional errors that may result thereby, since litigations
must somehow come to an end for otherwise, it would even be more intolerable than the wrong and
injustice it is designed to correct.
Same; Same; Motions for Reconsideration; The Supreme Court shall not entertain a second motion for
reconsideration and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the
Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership, and a second motion for
reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by
operation of law or by the Courts declaration.Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court explicitly
provides that *n+o motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall
be entertained. Moreover, Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court decrees viz.:
SEC. 3. Second motion for reconsideration.The Court shall not entertain a second motion for
reconsideration and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the
Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is reconsideration in
the highest interest of justice when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous but is likewise
patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to
the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be
reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Courts declaration. In the Division, a vote of
three Members shall be required to elevate a second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc.
[Aliviado vs. Procter & Gamble Phils., Inc., 650 SCRA 400(2011)]




Remedial Law; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; In the performance of their duties, courts should not
be shackled by stringent rules which would result in manifest injustice; When a case is impressed with
public interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order.Without belaboring in their
smallest details the arguments for and against the procedural dimension of this disposition, it bears to
stress that the Court has the power to suspend its own rules when the ends of justice would be served
thereby. In the performance of their duties, courts should not be shackled by stringent rules which
would result in manifest injustice. Rules of procedure are only tools crafted to facilitate the attainment
of justice. Their strict and rigid application must be eschewed, if they result in technicalities that tend to
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. Substantial rights must not be prejudiced by a rigid
and technical application of the rules in the altar of expediency. When a case is impressed with public
interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order. Time and again, this Court has suspended
its own rules or excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice
so require. [League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections, 608 SCRA 636(2009)]

CARPIO, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Remedial Law; Supreme Court; Judgments; Possible instances where the Supreme Court en banc may be
equally divided in opinion or where the necessary majority in the votes cannot be had.This provision
contemplates three possible instances where the Supreme Court en banc may be equally divided in
opinion or where the necessary majority in the votes cannot be had. First, in actions instituted originally
in the Supreme Court, if there is a tie-vote, the Court en banc shall deliberate again. After such re-
deliberation and the Court remains equally divided, which means that no decision had been reached,
the original action shall be dismissed. In such a case, the tie-vote results in the dismissal of the action
without establishing any jurisprudential precedent. Second, in cases appealed to the Supreme Court,
Section 7 of Rule 56 explicitly provides that if the Court en banc is still equally divided after re-
deliberation, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed. A tie-vote in cases arising under
the Courts appellate jurisdiction translates into a summary affirmance of the lower courts ruling. In
short, the tie-vote in the en banc cannot amend or reverse a prior majority
642

642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections
action of a lower court, whose decision stands affirmed. Third, on all incidental matters, which include
motions for reconsideration, Section 7 of Rule 56 specifically states that if the Court en banc is evenly
divided on such matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
Same; Same; Same; A.M. No. 99-1-09-SC; The Resolution clarifies any doubt on how a tie-vote on a
motion for reconsideration should be interpreted.To settle any doubt on how a tie-vote on a motion
for reconsideration should be interpreted, the Court en banc issued a clarificatory Resolution on 26
January 1999 in A.M. No. 99-1-09-SC, as follows: A MOTION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION
OR RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC OR OF A DIVISION MAY BE GRANTED UPON A VOTE OF A
MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EN BANC OR OF A DIVISION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WHO ACTUALLY
TOOK PART IN THE DELIBERATION OF THE MOTION. IF THE VOTING RESULTS IN A TIE, THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION IS DEEMED DENIED. The clear and simple language of the clarificatory en banc
Resolution requires no further explanation. If the voting of the Court en banc results in a tie, the motion
for reconsideration is deemed denied. The Courts prior majority action on the main decision stands
affirmed. This clarificatory Resolution applies to all cases heard by the Court en banc, which includes not
only cases involving the constitutionality of a law, but also, as expressly stated in Section 4(2), Article VIII
of the Constitution, all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc. In
short, Section 4(2) requires a majority vote of the Court en banc not only in cases involving the
constitutionality of a law, but also in all other cases that are heard by the Court en banc.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The tie-vote on a motion for reconsideration does not and cannot, in any
instance and for any reason, supersede the prior majority vote on the main decision.If the Philippine
Supreme Court en banc is evenly split in its opinion on a motion for reconsideration, it is not a deadlock
vote that must be resolved; it is simply not a majority vote, and the motion for reconsideration is
defeated. More importantly, the tie-vote on a motion for reconsideration does not and cannot, in any
instance and for any reason, supersede the prior majority vote on the main decision.
643

VOL. 608, DECEMBER 21, 2009
643
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Constitution does not require that motions for reconsideration in cases
involving the constitutionality of a law shall be treated differently from motions for reconsideration in
other cases heard by the Court en banc.To insure equal protection of the law, all cases required to be
heard by the Court en banc under Section 4(2), Article VII of the Constitution must be governed by the
same rules on voting, whether on the main decision or on the motion for reconsideration. There can be
no one rule for cases involving the constitutionality of a law and another rule for all other cases. The
Constitution makes no such distinction in Section 4(2) of Article VIII. Undeniably, the Constitution does
not require that motions for reconsideration in cases involving the constitutionality of a law shall be
treated differently from motions for reconsideration in other cases heard by the Court en banc. There is
no basis for such a different treatment, and such a different treatment would violate the equal
protection of the law. Where the Constitution does not distinguish, this Court must not create a forced
and baseless distinction. [League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections, 608 SCRA
636(2009)]









Courts; Judges; Gross Misconduct; Gross Ignorance; Gross Negligence and Inefficiency; Respondent
judge is found guilty of serious charges falling under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, namely,
gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and gross ignorance of the
law or procedure, as well as gross negligence or inefficiency, and further considering that he had
already been administratively sanctioned in another case for gross ignorance of the law, the Court
imposes upon him the extreme administrative penalty of dismissal.Judge Dilag is found guilty of
serious charges falling under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, namely, gross misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct in A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014 and gross ignorance of
the law or procedure, as well as gross negligence or inefficiency in A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTJ. Under
Section 11(A) of the said rules, the imposable penalties for the commission of a serious charge are as
follows: x x x Considering that Judge Dilag had already been administratively sanctioned in Ma. Teresa
De Jesus v. Judge Renato J. Dilag (471 SCRA 176 [2005]) wherein he was fined in the amount of
P30,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law, Judge Dilags already grave offenses are further aggravated.
Therefore, this Court imposes upon Judge Dilag the extreme administrative penalty of dismissal from the
service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave benefits, and disqualification
from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
_______________

* EN BANC.
492

492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Verginesa-Suarez vs. Dilag
Same; Court Personnel; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; The administrative liability for graft and
corruption is classified as a grave offense, for which the Court imposes the penalty of dismissal upon the
respondent stenographer.The administrative liability of Pascua for graft and corruption is classified as
a grave offense sanctioned by Paragraph A (9) of Section 52, in relation with Section 58, Rule IV of Civil
Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19-99 as follows: Par. A (9), Section 52.Receiving for
personal use of a fee, gift, or other valuable thing in the course of official duties or in connection
therewith when such fee, gift or other valuable thing is given by any person in the hope or expectation
of receiving a favor or better treatment than that accorded to other persons, or committing acts
punishable under the anti-graft laws. 1st Offense Dismissal. x x x x x x x x x Section 58.
Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties. a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it
that of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for
reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision. Thus, the Court
imposes upon Pascua the penalty of dismissal from the service which carries the accessory penalties of
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from
reemployment in the government service. The Court further agrees with the Investigating Justice that in
view of the evidence on record, Pascua should be investigated for possible criminal liability for the same
acts. [Verginesa-Suarez vs. Dilag, 580 SCRA 491(2009)]







Actions; Motions for Reconsideration; Pleadings and Practice; The 15-day reglementary period for filing
a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.Under Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, a party
may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within 15 days from notice
thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party. There is no question that petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration in CA-G.R. CV No. 80705 was filed one day beyond the reglementary period for doing
so. Atty. Beltran, petitioners former counsel, received notice and a copy of the 22 February 2006
Decision of the Court of Appeals on 28 February 2006, and had only until 15 March 2006 to file
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration thereof. However, Atty. Beltran filed said Motion on 16 March
2006. The 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.
Provisions of the Rules of Court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done or certain
proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to
the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial businesses. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory
and imperative.
Same; Same; Attorneys; Negligence; While it is true that excusable negligence is one of the recognized
grounds for a motion for new trial or reconsideration, there can be no excusable negligence when
ordinary prudence could have guarded against it; The Court imposes upon the attorney the duty, to
himself and to his clients, to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of receiving promptly all
judicial notices during his absence from his address of record.A client is generally bound by the
mistakes of his lawyer, otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit as long as a new counsel could
be employed who could allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or
experienced or learned. While it is true that excusable negligence is one of the recognized grounds for a
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
208

208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ponciano, Jr. vs. Laguna Lake Development Authority
motion for new trial or reconsideration, there can be no excusable negligence when ordinary prudence
could have guarded against it. The Court imposes upon the attorney the duty, to himself and to his
clients, to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of receiving promptly all judicial notices
during his absence from his address of record. The attorney must so arrange matters that
communications sent by mail, addressed to his office or residence, may reach him promptly. In earlier
cases, the Court did not excuse a counsels tardiness in complying with reglementary periods for filing
pleadings attributed to the negligence of said counsels secretary or clerk. In the same light, the Court
can neither sanction the late filing by Atty. Beltran of the Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G.R. CV No.
80705 which he blamed on his maid, nor free petitioner from the effect of Atty. Beltrans faux pas.
Same; Same; A petition for reconsideration on the ground of excusable negligence is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court.A petition for reconsideration on the ground of excusable negligence is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. This discretion can not be interfered with except in a
clear case of abuse. Taking into account all the circumstances of the instant case, the Court finds no such
abuse committed by the Court of Appeals in refusing to admit and act on petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration since the judgment subject of said Motion had already become final upon the lapse of
the 15-day reglementary period for the filing of the same. At that point, the appellate court had already
lost jurisdiction over the case and the subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration cannot disturb
the finality of the judgment nor restore jurisdiction which had already been lost.
Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; For purposes of determining its timeliness, a motion for
reconsideration may properly be treated as an appeal.Without a motion for reconsideration of the 22
February 2006 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 80705 having been timely filed with the Court of Appeals,
petitioner had also lost his right to appeal the said Decision to this Court. For purposes of determining its
timeliness, a motion for reconsideration may properly be treated as an appeal. As a step to allow an
inferior court to correct itself before review by a higher court, a motion for reconsideration must
necessarily be filed within the period to appeal. When filed beyond such period, the motion for
reconsideration ipso facto forecloses the right to appeal. [Ponciano, Jr. vs. Laguna Lake Development
Authority, 570 SCRA 207(2008)]






Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in
technicalities.After a conscientious review, we hold that a suspension of the Rules is warranted in this
case since the delay of one week and two days in the filing of the motion for reconsideration was not
occasioned by negligence on the part of petitioners lawyer in charge of the case, the latter having a
valid excuse to immediately take leave of absence in view of her fathers sudden demise. Additionally,
the merits of the case impel us to adopt a more liberal stance. There is likewise no showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. As we said in Barnes v. Padilla, 439 SCRA 675 (2004):
Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather
than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflects this
principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter
even that which this Court itself had already declared to be final.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any
alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors
of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, and
not a petition for certiorari.A certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character. The
special civil action for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction,
not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. As long as the
court acts within its
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
330

330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Garcia vs. Court of Appeals
jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more
than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court, and not a petition for certiorari.
Same; Same; Same; Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an
act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with
respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the
general power in respect of it are wanting.Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of
jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not
authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone
authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. The supervisory jurisdiction of
the court to issue a certiorari writ cannot be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower
court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case. In the absence of a
showing that there is reason for the Court to annul the decision of the concerned tribunal or to
substitute its own judgment, it is not the office of the Court in a petition for certiorari to inquire into the
correctness of the assailed decision or resolution. [Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 689 SCRA 329(2013)]








Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Raffle of Cases; A case, once raffled to a branch, belongs to that
branch unless re-raffled or otherwise transferred to another branch in accordance with established
procedure.A case, once raffled to a branch, belongs to that branch unless re-raffled or otherwise
transferred to another branch in accordance with established procedure. The primary responsibility over
the case belongs to the presiding judge of the branch to which it has been raffled/re-raffled or assigned.
Same; Same; Same; While the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is divided into several branches, each of the
branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.It bears to stress that while the RTC is
divided into several branches, each of the branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.
Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge, so that when a complaint is filed before one branch
or judge, jurisdiction does not attach to the said branch of the judge alone, to the exclusion of others.
Succinctly, jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2187-00 does not pertain solely to Branch 90 but to all the
branches of the RTC, Cavite, including Branch 22 to where
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
426

426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Castro vs. Guevarra
the case was subsequently re-raffled. The continuity of the court and the efficacy of its proceedings are
not affected by the death, retirement or cessation from service of the judge presiding over it. Evidently,
the argument, that the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order and all orders subsequently issued by Judge
Mangrobang were invalid for want of jurisdiction because of alleged undue interference by one branch
over another, holds no water.
Same; Same; Motion for Reconsideration; A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the
filing of a petition for certiorari; Exceptions.A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to
the filing of a petition for certiorari. However, the Court has recognized exceptions to the requirement,
such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial
judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of
justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is
one purely of law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency. The circumstances
obtaining in this case definitely placed Castros recourse under most of the above exceptions particularly
because Judge Mangrobang ordered a new trial in the March 23, 2007 Order.
Same; Same; New Trial; New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent
the failure of justice; A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a judgment
and the judgment is not yet final.New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a
judgment or prevent the failure of justice. The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the
previous adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of rendering a judgment in
accordance with law, taking into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial.
Consequently, a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or promulgation of a judgment or
issuance of a final order. A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a judgment
and the judgment is not yet final. [Castro vs. Guevarra, 671 SCRA 425(2012)]








Civil Procedure; Appeals; Notice of Appeal; Items that are required to be indicated in a notice of
appeal.Under Rule 41, Section
_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
259

VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010
259
PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Milan
5 of the Rules of Court, a notice of appeal is only required to indicate (a) the parties to the appeal, (b)
the final judgment or order or part thereof appealed from, (c) the court to which the appeal is being
taken, and (d) the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal. In usual court practice, a notice
of appeal would consist of one or two pages. Only after the specific issues and arguments of PCI Leasing
are laid out in detail before the Court of Appeals in the appropriate substantive pleading can it make a
conclusion as to whether or not the issues raised therein involved pure questions of law.
Same; Same; Fresh Period Rule; An ordinary appeal of a judgment by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) shall
be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from, except in the
meantime, a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed, in which case, appellant is given a fresh
period of fifteen (15) days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from receipt of
the order dismissing the motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.In accordance with
Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary appeal of a judgment by the RTC shall be taken
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Said period shall be
interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. In Neypes v. Court of Appeals, 469 SCRA
633 (2005), the Court had the occasion to clarify the rule regarding the period within which an appeal
may be taken should a motion for new trial or reconsideration be filed. To standardize the appeal
periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court
deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the
Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration.
Same; Same; Same; The fresh period rule shall also apply to appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to
the Regional Trial Courts, petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals,
appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and petitions for review on certiorari to the
Supreme Court.This fresh period rule shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the
Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional
Trial
260

260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Milan
Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals
and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new rule aims to regiment or
make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new
trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.
Same; Same; Motions for Reconsideration; Under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, a second
motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, the filing thereof does not toll the period within
which an appeal may be taken.The aforesaid Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration was already the
second attempt on the part of PCI Leasing to seek a reconsideration of the RTC Order dated October 13,
2000, dismissing Civil Case No. Q-00-40010. It is, thus, in the nature of a second motion for
reconsideration. Under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, such motion for reconsideration is a
prohibited pleading, which does not toll the period within which an appeal may be taken, to wit: SEC. 5.
Second motion for new trial.A motion for new trial shall include all grounds then available and those
not so included shall be deemed waived. A second motion for new trial, based on a ground not existing
nor available when the first motion was made, may be filed within the time herein provided excluding
the time during which the first motion had been pending. No party shall be allowed a second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final order. [PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Milan, 617 SCRA
258(2010)]










APPEALS



Appeals; The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory
privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process,
but merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the
provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of
the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost. [Heirs of Agapito T. Olarte and Angela A. Olarte vs.
Office of the President of the Philippines, 652 SCRA 123(2011)]


Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; Decisions, final orders or
resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings
involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review under Rule 45, which would be but
a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.Decisions, final orders or resolutions of
the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed
to this Court by filing a petition for review under Rule 45, which would be but a continuation of the
appellate process over the original case. The period to file a petition for review on certiorari is 15 days
from notice of the decision appealed from or of the denial of the petitioners motion for
reconsideration.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed
by law is mandatory. Failure to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and
executory and, hence, unappealable.The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period
prescribed by law is mandatory. Failure to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the
judgment final and executory and, hence, unappealable. Thus, the petitioners failure to file a petition
for review under Rule 45 within the reglementary period rendered the CAs June 24, 2008 Decision, as
modified by its March 4, 2009 Resolution, final and executory.
Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; A special civil action for certiorari will not lie as a substitute for
the lost remedy of appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by ones own neglect or
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
363

VOL. 688, JANUARY 9, 2013
363
Escalante vs. People
error in the choice of remedies.It is at once evident that the instant certiorari action is merely being
used by the petitioner to make up for his failure to promptly interpose an appeal from the CAs June 24,
2008 Decision and March 4, 2009 Resolution. However, a special civil action under Rule 65 cannot cure
petitioners failure to timely file a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
It is settled that a special civil action for certiorari will not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of
appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by ones own neglect or error in the choice of
remedies. [Escalante vs. People, 688 SCRA 362(2013)]



1.ELECTION; MUNICIPAL ELECTION PROTEST; MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
CANVASSERS TO CORRECT ITS CERTIFICATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESULT OF THE CANVASS;
CERTIORARI.After the municipal board of canvassers, in a municipal election, has completed its
canvass of the votes cast, the making of the certificate required by law becomes a purely ministered
duty. If that certificate does not conform with the result of the canvass of the votes cast, the writ of
mandamus will issue to compel said board to correct its certificate in accordance with the canvass. If the
certificate te is not in accordance with the facts as they appear from the "acta electoral [election
returns]," the writ of mandamus will issue for the purpose of compelling the board to correct its
certificate. Mandamus is the proper remedy to require a municipal board of canvassers to correct its
certificate in accordance with its own return or canvass.
2.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID.Notice of the petition for the writ of mandamus in such case need not be given to
all of the candidates voted for. If any of the candidates voted for is not satisfied with' the result of the
election, his objections thereto may be raised by a motion of protest. [Mun. Council of Las Pias vs.
Judge of First Inst. of Rizal., 40 Phil. 279(1919)]







Attorneys; Negligence; Pleadings and Practice; Appeal Brief; A lawyers failure to file brief for his client
certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence, a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well
as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of justice.What the
Valdez-Sales & Associates law office committed was not only ordinary negligence. The counsels failure
to file the appellants brief within the reglementary period constitutes gross negligence in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. An attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to the best
of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty
owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy
administration of justice.
Same; Same; The rule that negligence of counsel binds the client may be relaxed where adherence
thereto would result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property, or where the interests of
justice so require.We take exception to the general rule that the mistakes and negligence of counsel
binds the client. In view of the circumstances surrounding this case, we opt for liberality in the
application of the rules considering thatFirst, the rule that negligence of counsel binds the client may
be relaxed where adherence thereto would result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or
property, or where the interests of justice so require, and Second, this Court is not a slave to technical
rules, shorn of judicial discre-
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
313

VOL. 569, OCTOBER 17, 2008
313
Rutaquio vs. Court of Appeals
tion. In rendering justice, it is guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat
against substantive rights. Accordingly, if the application of the rules tends to frustrate rather than
promote justice, it is always within this Courts power to suspend the rules or except a particular case
from its application. [Rutaquio vs. Court of Appeals, 569 SCRA 312(2008)]






Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; A party who has not appealed from a decision cannot seek any relief
other than what is provided in the judgment appealed fromhe can only advance any argument that he
may deem necessary to defeat the appellants claim or to uphold the decision that is being disputed,
and he can assign errors in his brief if such is required to strengthen the views expressed by the court a
quo.It is well-settled that a party who has not appealed from a decision cannot seek any relief other
than what is provided in the judgment appealed from. An appellee who has himself not appealed may
not obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of
the court below. The appellee can only advance any argument that he may deem neces-
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
365

VOL. 543, JANUARY 31, 2008
365
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Garcia
sary to defeat the appellants claim or to uphold the decision that is being disputed, and he can assign
errors in his brief if such is required to strengthen the views expressed by the court a quo. These
assigned errors in turn may be considered by the appellate court solely to maintain the appealed
decision on other grounds, but not for the purpose of reversing or modifying the judgment in the
appellees favor and giving him other reliefs. *Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Garcia, 543 SCRA
364(2008)]



Appeals; Parties; While one partys appeal from a judgment will not inure to the benefit of a co-party
who failed to appealand as against the latter, the judgment will continue to run its course until it
becomes final and executoryto this general rule, however, one exception stands out, i.e., where both
parties have a commonality of interests, the appeal of one is deemed to be the vicarious appeal of the
other.One partys appeal from a judgment will not inure to the benefit of a co-party who failed to
appeal; and as against the latter, the judgment will continue to run its course until it becomes final and
executory. To this general rule, however, one exception stands
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
242

242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Maricalum Mining Corporation vs. Remington Industrial Sales Corporation
out: where both parties have a commonality of interests, the appeal of one is deemed to be the
vicarious appeal of the other. As the Court held in John Kam Biak Y. Chan, Jr. v. Iglesia ni Cristo, 473 SCRA
177 (2005): The modification made by this Court to the judgment of the Court of Appeals must operate
as against Yoro, for as fittingly held by the court a quo: While it is settled that a party who did not appeal
from the decision cannot seek any relief other than what is provided in the judgment appealed from,
nevertheless, when the rights and liability of the defendants are so interwoven and dependent as to be
inseparable, in which case, the modification of the appealed judgment in favor of appellant operates as
a modification to Gen. Yoro who did not appeal. In this case, the liabilities of Gen. Yoro and appellant
being solidary, the above exception applies. In Director of Lands v. Reyes, 69 SCRA 415 (1976), the Court
identified the circumstances indicative of a commonality in the interests of the parties, such as when: a)
their rights and liabilities originate from only one source or title; b) homogeneous evidence establishes
the existence of their rights and liabilities; and c) whatever judgment is rendered in the case or appeal,
their rights and liabilities will be affected, even if to varying extents. [Maricalum Mining Corporation vs.
Remington Industrial Sales Corporation, 544 SCRA 241(2008)]




Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Theory of the Case; As a rule, a party who deliberately adopts a
certain theory upon which the case is
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
764

764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Maxicare PCIB Cigna Healthcare vs. Contreras
tried and decided by the lower court, will not be permitted to change theory on appeal.As a rule, a
party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the lower
court, will not be permitted to change theory on appeal. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments
not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a
reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage. It would be unfair to the
adverse party who would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory,
which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court. To
permit Maxicare in this case to change its theory on appeal would thus be unfair to Dr. Contreras, and
would offend the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.
Same; Same; Courts; Jurisdiction; While jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a partys active
participation in the proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing
the lack of it.Indeed, Maxicare is already estopped from belatedly raising the issue of lack of
jurisdiction considering that it has actively participated in the proceedings before the LA and the NLRC.
The Court has consistently held that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a partys active
participation in the proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing
the lack of it. It is an undesirable practice of a party to participate in the proceedings, submit his case
for decision and then accept the judgment, if favorable, but attack it for lack of jurisdiction, when
adverse.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is true that questions of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage. It is also
true, however, that in the interest of fairness, questions challenging the jurisdiction of courts will not be
tolerated if the party questioning such jurisdiction actively participates in the court proceedings and
allows the court to pass judgment on the case, and then questions the propriety of said judgment after
getting an unfavorable decision.It is true that questions of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage. It is
also true, however, that in the interest of fairness, questions challenging the jurisdiction of courts will
not be tolerated if the party questioning such jurisdiction actively participates in the court proceedings
and allows the court to pass judgment on the case, and then questions the propriety of said judgment
after getting an unfavorable decision. It must be
765

VOL. 689, JANUARY 30, 2013
765
Maxicare PCIB Cigna Healthcare vs. Contreras
noted that Maxicare had two (2) chances of raising the issue of jurisdiction: first, in the LA level and
second, in the NLRC level. Unfortunately, it remained silent on the issue of jurisdiction while actively
participating in both tribunals. It was definitely too late for Maxicare to open up the issue of jurisdiction
in the CA. [Maxicare PCIB Cigna Healthcare vs. Contreras, 689 SCRA 763(2013)]



Appeals; Docket Fees; Payment of docket and other fees within the prescribe-d period to appeal is
mandatory for the perfection of the appeal; Where the appellate docket fee is not paid in full within the
reglementary period, the decision of the trial court becomes final and no longer susceptible to an
appeal.It bears stressing that payment of docket and other fees within this period is mandatory for
the
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
370

370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. vs. City of Paraaque
perfection of the appeal. Otherwise, the right to appeal is lost. This is so because a court acquires
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action only upon the payment of the correct amount of
docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in court. The payment of appellate docket
fees is not a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement, without which the
decision or final order appealed from becomes final and executory as if no appeal was filed. We held in
one case that the CA correctly dismissed the appeal where the docket fees were not paid in full within
the prescribed period of fifteen (15) days but were paid forty-one (41) days late due to inadvertence,
oversight, and pressure of work. In another case, we ruled that no appeal was perfected where half of
the appellate docket fee was paid within the prescribed period, while the other half was tendered after
the period within which payment should have been made. Evidently, where the appellate docket fee is
not paid in full within the reglementary period, the decision of the trial court becomes final and no
longer susceptible to an appeal. For once a decision becomes final, the appellate court is without
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Same; Same; The right to appeal is not a natural right, nor part of due processit is merely a statutory
privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.The
right to appeal is not a natural right. It is also not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege
and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who
seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so
often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.
Same; Same; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed
simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a partys substantive rightslike all rules,
they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be
relaxed.With regard to petitioners plea for a liberal treatment of the rules in order to promote
substantial justice, the Court finds the same to be without merit. It is true that the rules may be relaxed
for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate with his failure
to comply with the prescribed procedures. However, it must be stressed that procedural rules are not to
be belittled or dismissed
371

VOL. 656, AUGUST 31, 2011
371
D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. vs. City of Paraaque
simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a partys substantive rights. Like all rules,
they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be
relaxed. In this case, petitioner has not shown any reason such as fraud, accident, mistake, excusable
negligence, or a similar supervening casualty which should justify the relaxation of the rules. The
explanation advanced by petitioners counsel that the failure to pay the appellate docket and other legal
fees within the prescribed period was due to his extremely heavy workload and by excusable
inadvertence does not convince us. [D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. vs. City of Paraaque, 656
SCRA 369(2011)]





Appeals; Jurisdiction; Pleadings, Practice and Procedure; While the designation of the wrong court does
not necessarily affect the validity of the notice of appeal, the designation of the proper court should be
made within the 15-day period to appeal.Paragraph 3, Section 4 (c) of Republic Act No. 8249 (RA
8249), which defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provides: The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the regional trial courts
whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein
provided. Hence, upon his conviction, petitioners remedy should have been an appeal to the
Sandiganbayan. There is nothing in said paragraph which can conceivably justify the filing of petitioners
appeal before the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, the Court of Appeals is bereft
of any jurisdiction to review the judgment petitioner seeks to appeal. It must be emphasized, however,
that the designation of the wrong court does not necessarily affect the validity of the notice of appeal.
However, the designation of the proper court should be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Once
made within the said period, the designation of the correct appellate court may be allowed even if the
records of the case are forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of
Court would apply, the relevant portion of which states: Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the
Court of Appeals.x x x An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to
the appropriate court, but shall be dismissed outright. [Torres vs. People, 656 SCRA 486(2011)]




Remedial Law; Appeals; Fresh Period Rule; A party-litigant should be allowed a fresh period of 15 days
within which to file a notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), counted from receipt of the
order dismissing or denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.In Neypes v. Court of
Appeals, 469 SCRA 633 (2005), the Court declared that a party-litigant should be allowed a fresh period
of 15 days within which to file a notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from receipt of the order
dismissing or denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration, so as to standardize the
appeal periods provided in the Rules of Court and do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day
appeal period should be counted. Furthermore, in Sumiran v. Damaso, 596 SCRA 450 (2009), the Court
again emphasized that the ruling in Neypes, being a matter of procedure, must be given retroactive
effect and applied even to actions pending in this Court.
Civil Law; Sales; Redemption; Tender of Payment; What must be included in the amount tendered for a
valid redemption.It has been held that for a valid redemption, the amount tendered must include the
following: (1) the full amount paid by the purchaser; (2) with an additional one percent per month
interest on the purchase price up to the time of redemption; (3) together with the amount of any
assessments or taxes which the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase; (4) interest on the
taxes paid by the purchaser at the rate of one percent per month up to the time of redemption; and (5)
if the purchaser be also a creditor having a prior lien to that of the redemptioner, other than the
judgment under which such purchase was made, the amount of such other lien, with interest. [Torres vs.
Alamang, 626 SCRA 450(2010)]




Remedial Law; Appeals; Interlocutory Orders; No appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order;
Meaning of Interlocutory Order.We call attention to Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court
governing appeals from the RTC to the CA. This Section provides that an appeal may be taken only from
a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a matter therein when declared by
the Rules to be appealable. It explicitly states as well that no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory
order. In law, the word interlocutory refers to intervening developments between the
commencement of a suit and its complete termination; hence, it is a development that does not end the
whole controversy. An interlocutory order merely rules on an incidental issue and does not terminate
or finally dispose of the case; it leaves something to be done before the case is finally decided on the
merits.
Same; Same; Same; Certiorari; An Order denying a Motion to Dismiss is interlocutory; Only when the
court issues an order outside or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and the
remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief will certiorari be considered an
appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order.An Order denying a Motion to Dismiss is
interlocutory because it does not finally dispose of the case, and, in effect, directs the case to proceed
until final adjudication by the court. Only when the court issues an order outside or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
** Known as Josephine Marmo-Esguerra in other parts of the Rollo.
233

VOL. 606, NOVEMBER 27, 2009
233
Marmo vs. Anacay
and expeditious relief, will certiorari be considered an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory
order. [Marmo vs. Anacay, 606 SCRA 232(2009)]




Same; Same; Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of
possession of realty independently of title and refers likewise to an ejectment suit filed after the
expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
possession of the realty.From the allegations in the complaint, it appears that the petitioner became
the owner of the property on April 11, 1995 by virtue of the waiver of rights executed by his mother-in-
law. He filed the complaint for ejectment on March 2, 2001 after his February 1, 2001 letter to the
respondent demanding that the latter vacate the premises remained unheeded. While it is true that the
demand letter was received by the respondent on February 12, 2001, thereby making the filing of the
complaint for ejectment fall within the requisite one year from last demand for complaints for unlawful
detainer, it is also equally true that petitioner became the owner of the subject lot in 1995 and has been
since that time deprived possession of a portion thereof. From the date of the petitioners dispossession
in 1995 up to his filing of his complaint
174

174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Encarnacion vs. Amigo
for ejectment in 2001, almost 6 years have elapsed. The length of time that the petitioner was
dispossessed of his property made his cause of action beyond the ambit of an accion interdictal and
effectively made it one for accion publiciana. After the lapse of the one-year period, the suit must be
commenced in the Regional Trial Court via an accion publiciana which is a suit for recovery of the right
to possess. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty
independently of title. It also refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the
accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. [Encarnacion
vs. Amigo, 502 SCRA 172(2006)]




Corporate Rehabilitation; Appeals; Under A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, a petition for corporate rehabilitation is
considered a special proceeding; The period of appeal shall be 30 days since a record of appeal is
required.Section 5 of the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation provides that (t)he review of any
order or decision of the court or an appeal therefrom shall be in accordance with the Rules of Court
x x x. Under A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, a petition for corporate rehabilitation is considered a special
proceeding. Thus, the period of appeal provided in paragraph 19(b) of the Interim Rules Relative to the
Implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 for special proceedings shall apply, that is, the period of
appeal shall be 30 days since a record of appeal is required.
_______________

** Designated as Acting Member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 1006 dated June 10,
2011.
* SECOND DIVISION.
43

VOL. 653, JUNE 29, 2011
43
BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Pryce Gases, Inc.
Same; Same; A partys appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the
subject matter therein upon approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.Under Section 9, Rule
41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, (a) partys appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as
to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon approval of the record on appeal filed in due
time.
Same; Same; Appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege; The party who seeks to
exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to
appeal is lost.Appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. The party1 who seeks to
exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to
appeal is lost. While the Court, in certain cases, applies the policy of liberal construction, it may be
invoked only in situations where there is some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but
not where its application subverts the essence of the proceeding or results in the utter disregard of the
Rules of Court.
Same; Under Section 1, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation, the
proceedings shall be summary and non-adversarial in nature and a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading.In addition, BFB filed a motion for reconsideration of the 9
May 2006 Order of the RTC, Branch 138. Under Section 1, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on
Corporate Rehabilitation, the proceedings shall be summary and non-adversarial in nature and a motion
for new trial or reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Hence, in view of the failure of BFB to perfect
its appeal and its subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading, the 10
October 2003 Order of the RTC, Branch 138, approving the rehabilitation plan had become final and
executory. [BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Pryce Gases, Inc., 653 SCRA 42(2011)]




Remedial Law; Appeals; Modes of Appeal.The first mode of appeal, the ordinary appeal under Rule 41
of the Rules of Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, and
resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal, the petition
for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, acting in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction, and resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The third
mode of appeal, the appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the Supreme
Court and resolves only questions of law.
Same; Same; Same; Where a litigant files an appeal that raises only questions of law with the Court of
Appeals (CA), Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court expressly mandates that the CA should dismiss the
appeal outright as the appeal is not reviewable by that court.Where a litigant files an appeal that
raises only questions of law with the CA, Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court expressly mandates
that the CA should dismiss the appeal outright as the appeal is not reviewable by that court. There is a
question of law
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
644

644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of Nicolas S. Cabigas vs. Limbaco
when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the
truth or falsehood of facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and
jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or
controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
Same; Same; Same; When there is no dispute as to the facts, the questions of whether or not the
conclusion drawn from these facts is correct is a question of law.When there is no dispute as to the
facts, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn from these facts is correct is a question of
law. When the petitioners assailed the summary judgment, they were in fact questioning the
conclusions drawn by the RTC from the undisputed facts, and raising a question of law. [Heirs of Nicolas
S. Cabigas vs. Limbaco, 654 SCRA 643(2011)]





Jurisdictions; Annulment of Judgments; Section 9(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 vested in the CA the exclusive
original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments, but only those rendered by the RTCs. It
does not expressly give the CA the power to annul judgments of quasi-judicial bodies.This brings to
fore the issue of whether the
328

328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Springfield Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Presiding
Judge, RTC, Misamis Oriental, Br. 40, Cagayan de Oro City
petition for annulment of the DARAB judgment could be brought to the CA. As previously noted, Section
9(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 vested in the CA the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments, but only those rendered by the RTCs. It does not expressly give the CA the power to annul
judgments of quasi-judicial bodies. Thus, in Elcee Farms, Inc. v. Semillano, 413 SCRA 669 (2003), the
Court affirmed the ruling of the CA that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of a
final and executory judgment of the NLRC, citing Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, which only vests
in the CA exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts. This
was reiterated in Galang v. Court of Appeals, 472 SCRA 259 (2005), where the Court ruled that the CA is
without jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of judgment of a final decision of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Annulment of Judgments; Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the remedy of annulment of judgment is
confined to decisions of the Regional Trial Court on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction.In Cole v. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 692 (2000), involving an annulment of the judgment
of the HLURB Arbiter and the Office of the President (OP), filed with the CA, the Court stated that,
(U)nder Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the remedy of annulment of judgment is confined to decisions of
the Regional Trial Court on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction x x x.
Same; Civil Procedure; In Macalalag v. Ombudsman (424 SCRA 741 [2004]), the Court ruled that Rule 47
of the Rules of Civil Procedure on annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions cover
annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of
Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies could no longer be availed of through no fault of the petitioner.In Macalalag v.
Ombudsman, 424 SCRA 741 [2004]), the Court ruled that Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on
annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions covers annulment by the Court of Appeals of
judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies could no longer be
availed of through no fault of the petitioner. Thus, the Court concluded that judgments
329

VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 6, 2007
329
Springfield Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Presiding
Judge, RTC, Misamis Oriental, Br. 40, Cagayan de Oro City
or final orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases cannot be annulled by the CA,
more so, since The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an aggrieved party from
orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only, and the
right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the
Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.
Same; The court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of
national interest and of serious implication, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of
certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.It must be
stressed at this point that the Court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances,
such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary
remedy of writ of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.
The Court finds no compelling circumstances in this case to warrant a relaxation of the foregoing rule.
The Fortich case is not analogous with the present case such that the Court is not bound to abandon all
rules, take primary jurisdiction, and resolve the merits of petitioners application for a writ of
prohibition. [Springfield Development Corporation, Inc. vs. Presiding Judge, RTC, Misamis Oriental, Br.
40, Cagayan de Oro City, 514 SCRA 326(2007)]





Civil Procedure; Appeals; Certiorari; Certiorari is intended to correct only errors of jurisdiction where the
court or tribunal has acted with grave abuse of discretion.Time and again, we have discussed the
nature of a certiorari petitionit is intended to correct only errors of jurisdiction where the court or
tribunal has acted with grave abuse of discretion. A writ of certiorari cannot be used for any other
purpose; it cannot be used to resolve questions or issues beyond its competence such as errors of
judgment. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence
of the parties, its conclusions anchored on the said findings, and its conclusions of law.
Same; Same; Same; Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 is unequivocal in directing the dismissal of an
inappropriate mode of appeal.Since an order of dismissal by the trial court is a final order from which
an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 can be taken, the petitioners should have taken this avenue against
the RTC order of September 7, 1999 instead of resorting to a petition for certiorari before the CA.
Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 is unequivocal in directing the dismissal of an inappropriate mode of
appeal: 4. Erroneous AppealsAn appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by
the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
398

398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Goco vs. Court of Appeals
Same; Same; Parties; Cause of Action; One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action, in which case, it is dismissible on the ground of lack
of cause of action.Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an
interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere
curiosity about the question involved. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest,
the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action. [Goco vs. Court of Appeals, 617 SCRA
397(2010)]








Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; A decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), rendered in its appellate
jurisdiction, may be appealed to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the
Revised Rules of Court.A decision of the RTC, rendered in its appellate jurisdiction, may be appealed
to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court. Section 2
of Rule 42 prescribes the following requirements for a Petition for Review filed with the Court of
Appeals: SECTION 2. Form and contents. The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the
original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full
names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as
petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c)
set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of
fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments
relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or
true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court
of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other
material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. The petitioner shall also
submit together with the petition a certification under oath that he has not theretofore commenced any
other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the
status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency, he undertakes
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
193

VOL. 595, AUGUST 4, 2009
193
Espejo vs. Ito
to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days
therefrom.
Same; Due Process; The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due processit is merely a
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the law.On the matter of appeal, the Court ruled on several occasions that the right to
appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be
exercised only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who
seeks to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failure to do so results in the loss of
that right. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only
mandatory, but also jurisdictional.
Same; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of
judicial discretionin rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously
guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and
not the other way around.It bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in
the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to 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 the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other
way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it
is always within the power of the Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its
operation.
Same; Same; Submission of a document together with the motion for reconsideration constitutes
substantial compliance with the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be submitted along
with the petition, and calls for the relaxation of procedural rules.It should be noted that in this case,
petitioners immediately acted to rectify their earlier procedural lapse by submitting, together with their
Motion for Reconsideration of the 19 December 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, a Motion to
Admit a copy of their Complaint for Unlawful Detainer. Submission of a document together with the
194

194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Espejo vs. Ito
motion for reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that relevant or
pertinent documents be submitted along with the petition, and calls for the relaxation of procedural
rules. [Espejo vs. Ito, 595 SCRA 192(2009)]








Courts; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; As the case pertains only to a procedural matter, the Court
resolves the impasse by considering the resolution requiring the heirs of Luz Rodriguez to file their
memorandum as served and by deciding the merits of the case in this disposition. Technicalities that
impede the cause of justice must be avoided.As the case pertains only to a procedural matter, the
Court resolves the impasse by considering the resolution requiring the heirs of Luz Rodriguez to file their
memorandum as served and by deciding the merits of the case in this disposition. Technicalities that
impede the cause of justice must be avoided. To allow the case, which have been pending in this Court
for almost ten years now, to remain in limbo would be unfair to both parties especially to the heirs of
Luz Rodriguez, as the DAR had already taken possession of the property. At any rate, the heirs were
already notified at their address of record. [Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Rodriguez, 620 SCRA
307(2010)]





Actions; Courts; Jurisdictions; Well settled is the rule that what determines the nature of an action as
well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the
relief sought.Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of an action as well as which
court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
36

36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ross Rica Sales Center, Inc. vs. Ong
sought. Respondents contend that the complaint did not allege that petitioners possession was
originally lawful but had ceased to be so due to the expiration of the right to possess by virtue of any
express or implied contract.
Ejectment; Unlawful Detainer; It is equally settled that in an action for unlawful detainer, an allegation
that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed sufficient, without
necessarily employing the terminology of the law.In Javelosa v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the
allegation in the complaint that there was unlawful withholding of possession is sufficient to make out a
case for unlawful detainer. It is equally settled that in an action for unlawful detainer, an allegation that
the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed sufficient, without
necessarily employing the terminology of the law.
Same; Same; The phrase unlawfully withholding has been held to imply possession on the part of the
defendant, which was legal in the beginning, having no other source than a contract, express or implied,
and which later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant.The phrase unlawful
withholding has been held to imply possession on the part of defendant, which was legal in the
beginning, having no other source than a contract, express or implied, and which later expired as a right
and is being withheld by defendant. In Rosanna B. Barba v. Court of Appeals, we held that a simple
allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff is sufficient.
Same; Same; In an action for unlawful detainer, the question of possession is primordial while the issue
of ownership is generally unessential.The issue involved in accion reivindicatoria is the recovery of
ownership of real property. This differs from accion publiciana where the issue is the better right of
possession or possession de jure, and accion interdictal where the issue is material possession or
possession de facto. In an action for unlawful detainer, the question of possession is primordial while
the issue of ownership is generally unessential.
Same; Same; Jurisdictions; Petitioners, in all their pleadings, only sought to recover physical possession
of the subject property. The mere fact that they claim ownership over the parcel of land as well
37

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005
37
Ross Rica Sales Center, Inc. vs. Ong
did not deprive the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of jurisdiction to try ejectment case.Neither the
allegation in petitioners complaint for ejectment nor the defenses thereto raised by respondents
sufficiently convert this case into an accion reivindicatoria which is beyond the province of the MTC to
decide. Petitioners did not institute the complaint for ejectment as a means of claiming or obtaining
ownership of the properties. The acknowledgment in their pleadings of the fact of prior ownership by
respondents does not constitute a recognition of respondents present ownership. This is meant only to
establish one of the necessary elements for a case of unlawful detainer, specifically the unlawful
withholding of possession. Petitioners, in all their pleadings, only sought to recover physical possession
of the subject property. The mere fact that they claim ownership over the parcels of land as well did not
deprive the MTC of jurisdiction to try the ejectment case.
Same; Same; Same; If what is prayed for is ejectment or recovery of possession, it does not matter if
ownership is claimed by either party. Therefore, the pending actions for declaration of nullity of deed of
sale and Transfer Certificate of Title and quieting of title will not abate the ejectment case.Even if
respondents claim ownership as a defense to the complaint for ejectment, the conclusion would be the
same for mere assertion of ownership by the defendant in an ejectment case will not therefore oust the
municipal court of its summary jurisdiction. This Court in Ganadin v. Ramos stated that if what is prayed
for is ejectment or recovery of possession, it does not matter if ownership is claimed by either party.
Therefore, the pending actions for declaration of nullity of deed of sale and Transfer Certificates of Title
and quieting of title in Civil Case No. MAN-2356 will not abate the ejectment case.
Same; Same; Same; The filing of an action for reconveyance of title over the same property or for
annulment of the deed of sale over the land does not divest the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of its
jurisdiction to try the forcible entry or unlawful detainer case before it.In Drilon v. Gaurana, this Court
ruled that the filing of an action for reconveyance of title over the same property or for annulment of
the deed of sale over the land does not divest the MTC of its jurisdiction to try the forcible entry or
unlawful detainer case before it, the rationale being that, while there may be identity of parties and
subject matter in the forcible entry case and the suit for annulment of title
38

38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ross Rica Sales Center, Inc. vs. Ong
and/or reconveyance, the rights asserted and the relief prayed for are not the same.
Same; Same; Same; An adjudication made in an ejectment proceeding regarding the issue of ownership
should be regarded as merely provisional and, therefore, would not bar or prejudice an action between
the same parties involving title to the land. The foregoing doctrine is a necessary consequence of the
nature of forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases where the only issue to be settled is the physical or
material possession over the real property, that is, possession de facto and not possession de jure.In
Oronce v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the fact that respondents had previously filed a separate
action for the reformation of a deed of absolute sale into one of pacto de retro sale or equitable
mortgage in the same Court of First Instance is not a valid reason to frustrate the summary remedy of
ejectment afforded by law to the plaintiff. Consequently, an adjudication made in an ejectment
proceeding regarding the issue of ownership should be regarded as merely provisional and, therefore,
would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land. The foregoing
doctrine is a necessary consequence of the nature of forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases where
the only issue to be settled is the physical or material possession over the real property, that is,
possession de facto and not possession de jure.
Same; Same; Same; The long settled rule is that the issue of ownership cannot be subject of a collateral
attack.The long settled rule is that the issue of ownership cannot be subject of a collateral attack. In
Apostol v. Court of Appeals, this Court had the occasion to clarify this: . . . Under Section 48 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law.
The issue of the validity of the title of the respondents can only be assailed in an action expressly
instituted for that purpose. Whether or not the petitioners have the right to claim ownership over the
property is beyond the power of the court a quo to determine in an action for unlawful detainer. [Ross
Rica Sales Center, Inc. vs. Ong, 467 SCRA 35(2005)]






Civil Procedure; Judgments; Res Judicata; Words and Phrases; Res judicata literally means a matter
adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.Res judicata
literally means a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by
judgment. Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits,
and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its
jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the
same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the
first suit.
Same; Same; Same; Bar by prior judgment distinguished from conclusiveness of judgment; Concepts of
the doctrine of res judicata.The doctrine of res judicata thus lays down two main rules which may be
stated as follows: (1) The judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits
concludes the parties and their privies to the litigation and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit
involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal; and (2) Any right, fact,
or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a
competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the
judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the
claims or demands, purposes, or subject matters of the two suits are the same. These two main rules
mark the distinction between the principles governing the two typical cases in which a judgment may
operate as evidence. In speaking of these cases, the first general rule above stated, and which
corresponds to the afore-quoted paragraph (b) of Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, is referred to
as bar by former judgment; while the second
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
147

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008
147
Alamayri vs. Pabale
general rule, which is embodied in paragraph (c) of the same section and rule, is known as
conclusiveness of judgment.
Same; Same; Same; Conclusiveness of judgment bars the re-litigation in a second case of a fact or
question already settled in a previous case; Conclusiveness of judgment requires only the identity of
issues and parties, but not of causes of action.Conclusiveness of judgment bars the re-litigation in a
second case of a fact or question already settled in a previous case. The second case, however, may still
proceed provided that it will no longer touch on the same fact or question adjudged in the first case.
Conclusiveness of judgment requires only the identity of issues and parties, but not of causes of action.
Same; Appeals; Evidence; In general, the Court of Appeals conducts hearings and receives evidence prior
to the submission of the case for judgment; Only under exceptional circumstances may the court receive
new evidence after having rendered judgment.It is true that the Court of Appeals has the power to try
cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant
and conduct new trials or further proceedings. In general, however, the Court of Appeals conducts
hearings and receives evidence prior to the submission of the case for judgment. It must be pointed out
that, in this case, Alamayri filed her Motion to Schedule Hearing to Mark Exhibits in Evidence on 21
November 2001. She thus sought to submit additional evidence as to the identity of Jose Pabale, not
only after CA-G.R. CV No. 58133 had been submitted for judgment, but after the Court of Appeals had
already promulgated its Decision in said case on 10 April 2001. The parties must diligently and
conscientiously present all arguments and available evidences in support of their respective positions to
the court before the case is deemed submitted for judgment. Only under exceptional circumstances may
the court receive new evidence after having rendered judgment; otherwise, its judgment may never
attain finality since the parties may continually refute the findings therein with further evidence.
Remedial Law Special Proceedings; Guardianship; The objectives of an RTC hearing a petition for
appointment of a guardian under Rule 93 of the Rules of Court is to determine, first, whether a person is
indeed a minor or an incompetent who has no capacity to
148

148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Alamayri vs. Pabale
care for himself and/or his properties; and second, who is most qualified to be appointed as his
guardian.The objectives of an RTC hearing a petition for appointment of a guardian under Rule 93 of
the Rules of Court is to determine, first, whether a person is indeed a minor or an incompetent who has
no capacity to care for himself and/or his properties; and, second, who is most qualified to be appointed
as his guardian. The rules reasonably assume that the people who best could help the trial court settle
such issues would be those who are closest to and most familiar with the supposed minor or
incompetent, namely, his relatives living within the same province and/or the persons caring for him.
Same; Same; Same; The burden of proving incapacity to enter into contractual relations rests upon the
person who alleges it; if no sufficient proof to this effect is presented, capacity will be presumed.
While both cases involve a determination of Naves incompetency, it must be established at two
separate times, one in 1984 and the other in 1986. A finding that she was incompetent in 1986 does not
automatically mean that she was so in 1984. In Carillo v. Jaojoco, 46 Phil. 957, 960 (1924), the Court
ruled that despite the fact that the seller was declared mentally incapacitated by the trial court only nine
days after the execution of the contract of sale, it does not prove that she was so when she executed
the contract. Hence, the significance of the two-year gap herein cannot be gainsaid since Naves mental
condition in 1986 may vastly differ from that of 1984 given the intervening period. Capacity to act is
supposed to attach to a person who has not previously been declared incapable, and such capacity is
presumed to continue so long as the contrary be not proved; that is, that at the moment of his acting he
was incapable, crazy, insane, or out of his mind. The burden of proving incapacity to enter into
contractual relations rests upon the person who alleges it; if no sufficient proof to this effect is
presented, capacity will be presumed. [Alamayri vs. Pabale, 553 SCRA 146(2008)]




Judgments; Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies which have acquired
expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great
respect but even finality.The documents submitted by respondent to support its application for
exemption as well as the Investigation Report of CLUPPI-II clearly show that the 27 parcels of land,
specifically identified, were already re-classified as residential prior to the effectivity of the CARL. Well-
settled is the rule that findings of fact of x x x quasi-judicial bodies (like the DAR) which have acquired
expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great
respect but even finality. They are binding upon this Court unless there is a
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
692

692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rom vs. Roxas & Company, Inc.
showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or
in utter disregard of the evidence on record.
Civil Procedure; Appeals; Department of Agrarian Reform; Rule 43 governs the procedure for judicial
review of decisions, orders, or resolutions of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary.
Section 61 of R.A. No. 6657 clearly mandates that judicial review of DAR orders or decisions are
governed by the Rules of Court. The Rules direct that it is Rule 43 that governs the procedure for judicial
review of decisions, orders, or resolutions of the DAR Secretary.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law; Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the
coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) including lands previously converted to non-
agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR).In Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, 225 SCRA 278
(1993), it was held that lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL
including lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by
government agencies other than the DAR. This being the case, respondent is not bound by its previous
voluntary offer to sell because the subject properties cannot be the subject of a VOS, they being clearly
beyond the CARPs coverage.
Civil Procedure; Appeals; Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of
the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing
court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage.It is well-settled that no question
will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories,
issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-
judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at
that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the
first time on appeal is barred by estoppel. *Rom vs. Roxas & Company, Inc., 656 SCRA 691(2011)+








Banks and Banking; Checks; Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC); Administrative Law;
Jurisdiction; The Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC) Rules cannot confer jurisdiction on the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) to review arbitral awardssince the Philippine Clearing House Corporation
(PCHC) Rules came about only as a result of an agreement between and among member banks of
Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC) and not by law, it cannot confer jurisdiction to the
Regional Trial Court (RTC).This erroneous move of the petitioner was fatal to its cause. The Court has
already explained in Insular Savings Bank v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, 492 SCRA 145 (2006), that
the PCHC Rules cannot confer jurisdiction on the RTC to review arbitral awards, thus: Jurisdiction is the
authority to hear and determine a causethe right to act in a case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
581

VOL. 579, FEBRUARY 18, 2009
581
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals
question belong. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and not by the consent or
acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. In the instant
case, petitioner and respondent have agreed that the PCHC Rules would govern in case of controversy.
However, since the PCHC Rules came about only as a result of an agreement between and among
member banks of PCHC and not by law, it cannot confer jurisdiction to the RTC. Thus, the portion of the
PCHC Rules granting jurisdiction to the RTC to review arbitral awards, only on questions of law, cannot
be given effect. Consequently, the proper recourse of petitioner from the denial of its motion for
reconsideration by the Arbitration Committee is to file either a motion to vacate the arbitral award with
the RTC, a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, or a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. [Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Court of
Appeals, 579 SCRA 580(2009)]





Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; This Court, as a rule, only
reviews questions of law in a Rule 45 petition for review; When the factual findings of the CA conflict
with those of the labor authorities, the Court is forced to review the evidence on record.This Court, as
a rule, only reviews questions of law in a Rule 45 petition for review. In labor cases, the factual findings
of the labor arbiter and of the NLRC are generally respected and, if supported by substantial evidence,
accorded finality. This rule, however, is not absolute. When the factual findings of the CA conflict with
those of the labor authorities, the Court is forced to review the evidence on record.
Labor Law; Regular Employees; Under the law, an employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.Even if we were to consider that Sagad
went through a probationary period, the records indicate that he was retained even beyond the
expiration of his supposed probationary employment on October 14, 2006. As the NLRC noted, Sagad
claimed that he was dismissed by the company on November 5, 2006, after he was accused of conniving
with conductor Vitola in issuing tickets outside their assigned route. The company never refuted this
particular assertion of Sagad and its silence can only mean that Sagad remained in employment until
November 4, 2006, thereby attaining regular status as of that date. Under the law, an employee who is
allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
Same; Termination of Employment; Serious Misconduct; The irregularities or infractions committed by
Sagad in connection with his work as a bus driver constitute a serious misconduct or, at the very least,
conduct analogous to serious misconduct, under the above-cited Article 282 of the Labor Code. To be
sure, his tendency to speed
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
778

778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sampaguita Auto Transport Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission
up during his trips, his reckless driving, his picking up passengers in the middle of the road, his racing
with other buses and his jostling for vantage positions do not speak well of him as a bus driver.Art.
282. Termination by employer.An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following
causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee
of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or
duly authorized representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the
person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative;
and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. [emphasis supplied] The irregularities or infractions
committed by Sagad in connection with his work as a bus driver constitute a serious misconduct or, at
the very least, conduct analogous to serious misconduct, under the above-cited Article 282 of the Labor
Code. To be sure, his tendency to speed up during his trips, his reckless driving, his picking up
passengers in the middle of the road, his racing with other buses and his jostling for vantage positions
do not speak well of him as a bus driver. While he denies being informed, when he was hired, of the
duties and responsibilities of a drivercontained in a document submitted in evidence by the
companythe requirement 3. to obey traffic rules and regulations as well as the company policies. 4.
to ensure the safety of the riding public as well as the other vehicles and motorist (sic) is so
fundamental and so universal that any bus driver is expected to satisfy the requirement whether or not
he has been so informed.
Same; Same; Same; Through his reckless driving and his schemes to defraud the company, Sagad
committed serious misconduct and breach of the trust and confidence of his employer, which, without
doubt, are just causes for his separation from the service. It is well to stress, at this point, an earlier
pronouncement of the Court that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light
of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine.Under the circumstances, Sagad has become
a liability rather than an asset to his employer, more so when we consider that he attempted to cheat
on the company or could have, in fact, defrauded the company during his brief tenure as a bus driver.
This calls to mind Castillos report on the low revenue of Sagads bus, an observa-
779

VOL. 689, JANUARY 30, 2013
779
Sampaguita Auto Transport Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission
tion which is validated by the companys Daily Operation Reports from June to October 2006. All told,
we find substantial evidence supporting Sagads removal as a bus driver. Through his reckless driving
and his schemes to defraud the company, Sagad committed serious misconduct and breach of the trust
and confidence of his employer, which, without doubt, are just causes for his separation from the
service. It is well to stress, at this point, an earlier pronouncement of the Court that justice is in every
case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and
doctrine.
Same; Same; Two-Notice Rule; Agabon Doctrine; Consistent with our ruling in Agabon v. NLRC, 442 SCRA
573 (2004), we hold that the violation of Sagads right to procedural due process entitles him to an
indemnity in the form of nominal damages.Even as we find a just cause for Sagads dismissal, we
agree with the CA that the company failed to comply with the two-notice rule. It failed to serve notice
of: (1) the particular acts for which Sagad was being dismissed on November 5, 2006 and (2) his actual
dismissal. Consistent with our ruling in Agabon v. NLRC, 442 SCRA 573 (2004), we hold that the violation
of Sagads right to procedural due process entitles him to an indemnity in the form of nominal damages.
Considering the circumstances in the present case, we deem it appropriate to award Sagad P30,000.00.
[Sampaguita Auto Transport Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 689 SCRA 777(2013)]





Tenancy; For a tenancy relationship to exist between the parties, the following essential elements must
be shown: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land;
(3) there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal
cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of the harvests between the parties. The presence of
all of these elements must be proved by substantial evidence.For a tenancy relationship to exist
between the parties, the following essential elements must be shown: (1) the parties are the landowner
and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4)
the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is
sharing of the harvests between the parties. The presence of all of these elements must be proved by
substantial evidence.
Same; Civil Procedure; Petition for Review; The question of whether a tenancy relationship exists is
basically a question of fact which, as a general rule, is beyond the scope of a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.The question of whether a
tenancy relationship exists is basically a question of fact which, as a general rule, is beyond the scope of
a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The
question of whether there was an implied tenancy and sharing are basically questions of fact and the
findings of the Court of Appeals and the Boards a quo are, generally, entitled to respect and
nondisturbance, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
346

346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Estate of Pastor M. Samson vs. Susano
Same; Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed; the elements for its existence are explicit in law and
cannot be done away with by conjectures.Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed; the elements for
its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done away with by conjectures. Leasehold relationship is
not brought about by the mere congruence of facts but, being a legal relationship, the mutual will of the
parties to that relationship should be primordial. For implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the
essential requisites of tenancy must be present. [Estate of Pastor M. Samson vs. Susano, 649 SCRA
345(2011)]





Remedial Law; Expropriation; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; Questions of
fact may not be raised in a petition brought under Rule 45, as such petition may only raise questions of
law. This rule applies in expropriation cases.This Court is not a trier of facts. Questions of fact may not
be raised in a petition brought under Rule 45, as such petition may only raise questions of law. This rule
applies in expropriation cases. Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are
generally binding on this Court. An evaluation of the case and the issues presented leads the Court to
the conclusion that it is unnecessary to deviate from the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts.
Same; Same; Under Section 8 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the trial court sitting as an expropriation
court may, after hearing, accept the commissioners report and render judgment in accordance
therewith.Under Section 8 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the trial court sitting as an expropriation
court may, after hearing, accept the commissioners report and render judgment in accordance
therewith. This is what the trial court did in this case. The CA affirmed the trial courts pronouncement
in toto. Given these facts, the trial court and the CAs identical findings of fact concerning the issue of
just compensation should be accorded the greatest respect, and are binding on the Court absent proof
that they committed error in establishing the facts and in drawing conclusions from them. There being
no showing that the trial court and the CA committed any error, we thus accord due respect to their
findings.
Civil Law; Sales; Market Value; The market value of the property is the price that may be agreed upon by
parties willing but not compelled to enter into a sale.Moreover, of note are petitioners
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
350

350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Heirs of Spouses Pedro Bautista and Valentina Malabanan
several purchases of land within the vicinity, ranging from P500.00 up to P3,000.00 per square meter,
from 1997 up to 2003. The average price of all these purchases within the vicinity amounts to P1,960.00
per square meter. Although it may be said that from the facts this amount is low, the respondents have
nonetheless given their assent to this valuation in their June 23, 2005 Comment as well as in their July
25, 2008 Comment filed before this Court. Thus, as to them, the market value of the subject portion is
P1,960.00 per square meter. As for the petitionera desperate buyer of the subject portion which is
absolutely necessary to link the existing highway to the citythis is what it should be made to pay for
the subject portion. It must be remembered that *t+he market value of the property is the price that
may be agreed upon by parties willing but not compelled to enter into a sale. Not unlikely, a buyer
desperate to acquire [it] would agree to pay more, and a seller in urgent need of funds would agree to
accept less, than what it is actually worth. *Republic vs. Heirs of Spouses Pedro Bautista and Valentina
Malabanan, 689 SCRA 349(2013)]




Relief from Judgment; When a party has another remedy available to him, which may either be a motion
for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the lower court, and he was not prevented by fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking the appeal, he cannot avail
himself of the relief provided in Rule 38relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from
the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence or a
mistaken mode of procedure.Relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is a remedy
provided by law to any person against whom a decision or order is entered into through fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence. The relief provided for is of equitable character, allowed only in
exceptional cases as where there is no other available or adequate remedy. When a party has another
remedy available to him, which may either be a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision
of the lower court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from
filing such motion or taking the appeal, he cannot avail himself of the relief provided in Rule 38. The rule
is that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when
the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure,
otherwise the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already
been lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake in the mode of procedure by
counsel.
Same; Words and Phrases; The word mistake which grants relief from judgment, does not apply and
was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial.In his
Petition for Relief from Judgment filed before the RTC, petitioner alleged that the petition was filed on
the ground that the RTC made serious and prejudicial mistakes in appreciating the evidence presented.
He then proceeded to discuss the errors of judgment committed by the RTC in rendering its decision.
The mistake contemplated by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court pertains generally to mistake of fact, not of
law, which relates to the case. The
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
232

232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Samonte vs. S.F. Naguiat, Inc.
word mistake which grants relief from judgment, does not apply and was never intended to apply to a
judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial. Such error may be corrected by means
of an appeal.
Same; A petition for relief without a separate affidavit of merit is sufficient where facts constituting
petitioners substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be, are alleged in a verified petition
since the oath elevates the petition to the same category as a separate affidavit.Section 3, Rule 38 of
the Rules of Court requires that the petition must be accompanied with affidavits of merits showing the
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon by petitioner and the facts constituting the
petitioners good and substantial cause of action or defense as the case maybe. While a petition for
relief without a separate affidavit of merit is sufficient where facts constituting petitioners substantial
cause of action or defense, as the case may be, are alleged in a verified petition since the oath elevates
the petition to the same category as a separate affidavit, the petition for relief filed by petitioner was
not even verified. Thus, the CA did not err in no longer considering the merits of the case.
Attorneys; There is no rule more settled than that a client is bound by his counsels conduct, negligence
and mistake in handling the caseto allow a party to disown his counsels conduct would render
proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing
counsel.Petitioner now contends that the CA should have considered that it was petitioners former
counsel who has the implied authority to determine what procedural steps to take which in his
judgment will best serve the interest of his client; that petitioner, being not knowledgeable of the laws,
ought not to be blamed by the incompetence, ignorance and inexperience of his counsel; and that rules
of procedure should give way for a liberal construction if the same will hinder, impede or sacrifice the
demands of substantial justice. There is no rule more settled than that a client is bound by his counsels
conduct, negligence and mistake in handling the case. To allow a party to disown his counsels conduct
would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of
replacing counsel. Petitioner failed to show that his counsels negligence was so gross and palpable as to
call for the exercise of this Courts equity jurisdiction. While it is true that rules of procedure are not cast
in stone, it is equally true that strict compliance with the Rules is indispensable for the prevention of
needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business. [Samonte vs. S.F.
Naguiat, Inc., 602 SCRA 231(2009)]





Pleadings and Practice; Admissions; The factual admission in the pleadings on record dispenses with the
need to present evidence to prove the admitted fact, and all proofs submitted by the party making such
admission contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether objection is
interposed by a party or not.An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The factual admission in the pleadings on
record [dispenses] with the need x x x to present evidence to prove the admitted fact. It cannot,
therefore, be controverted by the party making such admission, and *is+ conclusive as to them. All
proofs submitted by them contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether
objection is interposed by a party or not. Besides, there is no showing that a palpable mistake has been
committed in their admission or that no admission has been made by them.
Annulment of Judgments; The 60-day period for filing a petition for annulment of judgment is reckoned
from the time the party acquired knowledge of the order, judgment or proceedings and not from the
date he actually read the same.Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court states: SEC. 3. Time for filing
petition; contents and verification.A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this
Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order,
or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order
was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioners
good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. There is no reason for the Baloloys
to ignore the effects of the above-cited rule. The 60-day period is reckoned from
_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
412

412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Escueta vs. Lim
the time the party acquired knowledge of the order, judgment or proceedings and not from the date he
actually read the same.
Agency; The agent may appoint a substitute if the principal has not prohibited him from doing so.
Article 1892 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1892. The agent may appoint a substitute if the principal has
not prohibited him from doing so; but he shall be responsible for the acts of the substitute: (1) When he
was not given the power to appoint one x x x. Applying the above-quoted provision to the special power
of attorney executed by Ignacio Rubio in favor of his daughter Patricia Llamas, it is clear that she is not
prohibited from appointing a substitute. By authorizing Virginia Lim to sell the subject properties,
Patricia merely acted within the limits of the authority given by her father, but she will have to be
responsible for the acts of the sub-agent, among which is precisely the sale of the subject properties in
favor of respondent.
Same; Sales; A contract executed by an agent without authority to sell is not void but simply
unenforceable.Even assuming that Virginia Lim has no authority to sell the subject properties, the
contract she executed in favor of respondent is not void, but simply unenforceable, under the second
paragraph of Article 1317 of the Civil Code which reads: Art. 1317. x x x A contract entered into in the
name of another by one who has no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his
powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose
behalf it has been executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting party.
Same; Same; The acceptance and encashment by the owner of a check representing the purchase price
of his property sold through his agent constitute ratification of the contract of sale and produce the
effects of an express power of agency.Ignacio Rubio merely denies the contract of sale. He claims,
without substantiation, that what he received was a loan, not the down payment for the sale of the
subject properties. His acceptance and encashment of the check, however, constitute ratification of the
contract of sale and produce the effects of an express power of agency. *H+is action necessarily
implies that he waived his right of action to avoid the contract, and, consequently, it also implies the
tacit, if not express, confirmation of the said sale effected by Virginia Lim in favor of respondent.
413

VOL. 512, JANUARY 24, 2007
413
Escueta vs. Lim
Same; Same; Estoppel; The doctrine of estoppel is not only that which prohibits a party from assuming
inconsistent positions, based on the principle of election, but that which precludes him from repudiating
an obligation voluntarily assumed after having accepted benefits therefrom.Similarly, the Baloloys
have ratified the contract of sale when they accepted and enjoyed its benefits. The doctrine of estoppel
applicable to petitioners here is not only that which prohibits a party from assuming inconsistent
positions, based on the principle of election, but that which precludes him from repudiating an
obligation voluntarily assumed after having accepted benefits therefrom. To countenance such
repudiation would be contrary to equity, and would put a premium on fraud or misrepresentation.
Same; Same; Double Sales; A second buyer of the property who may have had actual or constructive
knowledge of a defect in the sellers title, or at least was charged with the obligation to discover such
defect, cannot be a registrant in good faith.Applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code, a second buyer of
the property who may have had actual or constructive knowledge of such defect in the sellers title, or
at least was charged with the obligation to discover such defect, cannot be a registrant in good faith.
Such second buyer cannot defeat the first buyers title. In case a title is issued to the second buyer, the
first buyer may seek reconveyance of the property subject of the sale. Even the argument that a
purchaser need not inquire beyond what appears in a Torrens title does not hold water. A perusal of the
certificates of title alone will reveal that the subject properties are registered in common, not in the
individual names of the heirs.
Same; Same; Earnest Money; Earnest money constitutes an advance payment to be deducted from the
total price.Earnest money has been given by respondent. *I+t shall be considered as part of the price
and as proof of the perfection of the contract. It constitutes an advance payment to be deducted from
the total price.
Same; Same; In a contract of sale, the vendor loses ownership over the property and cannot recover it
until and unless the contract is resolved or rescinded.Ignacio Rubio could no longer sell the subject
properties to Corazon Escueta, after having sold them to respondent. *I+n a contract of sale, the vendor
loses ownership over the property and cannot recover it until and unless the contract is resolved or
rescinded x x x. The records do not show that Ignacio
414

414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Escueta vs. Lim
Rubio asked for a rescission of the contract. What he adduced was a belated revocation of the special
power of attorney he executed in favor of Patricia Llamas. In the sale of immovable property, even
though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the
rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the
period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or
by a notarial act. *Escueta vs. Lim, 512 SCRA 411(2007)+





Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Annulment of Judgments; A Petition for Annulment of Judgment under
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a party,
without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies.A Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules
of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a party, without fault on his
part, has
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
23

VOL. 688, JANUARY 7, 2013
23
Diona vs. Balangue
failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies. Said rule explicitly provides that it is not available as a substitute for a remedy which was lost
due to the partys own neglect in promptly availing of the same. The underlying reason is traceable to
the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must
end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice
that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest.
Same; Same; Same; Due Process; While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction,
jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment.While under
Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of Judgment may be based only on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as
additional ground to annul a judgment. In Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 20 (1997), this Court
declared that a final and executory judgment may still be set aside if, upon mere inspection thereof, its
patent nullity can be shown for having been issued without jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law.
Same; Same; Courts; Courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is
being sought by the party. They cannot also grant a relief without first ascertaining the evidence
presented in support thereof.It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the
pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by the party. They cannot also grant a relief without first
ascertaining the evidence presented in support thereof. Due process considerations require that
judgments must conform to and be supported by the pleadings and evidence presented in court. In
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Teston, 545 SCRA 422 (2008), this Court expounded that: Due
process considerations justify this requirement. It is improper to enter an order which exceeds the scope
of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be
heard with respect to the proposed relief. The fundamental purpose of the requirement that alle-
24

24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Diona vs. Balangue
gations of a complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Ordinarily, the mistake, negligence or lack of competence of counsel binds the
client; A recognized exception to the rule is when the lawyers were grossly negligent in their duty to
maintain their clients cause and such amounted to a deprivation of their clients property without due
process of law.Ordinarily, the mistake, negligence or lack of competence of counsel binds the client.
This is based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied
authority is regarded as an act of his client. A recognized exception to the rule is when the lawyers were
grossly negligent in their duty to maintain their clients cause and such amounted to a deprivation of
their clients property without due process of law. In which case, the courts must step in and accord
relief to a client who suffered thereby.
Same; Same; A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, to the end
that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the law.A lawyer
owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the maintenance and defense of
his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, to the end that nothing can be taken or
withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. Judging from how respondents former
counsel handled the cause of his clients, there is no doubt that he was grossly negligent in protecting
their rights, to the extent that they were deprived of their property without due process of law. [Diona
vs. Balangue, 688 SCRA 22(2013)]





Actions; Judgments; Annulment of Judgments; A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of a
Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner.A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of a Regional Trial Court in civil
actions can only be availed of where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. It is a remedy
granted only under exceptional circumstances and such action is never resorted to as a substitute for a
partys own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies. The only
grounds provided in Sec. 2, Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; Attorneys; When a party retains the services of a lawyer, he is bound by his
counsels actions and decisions regarding the conduct of the case, and this is true especially where he
does not complain against the manner his counsel handles the suit.We are not persuaded by
respondents asseveration. They could have directly followed up the status of their case with the RTC
especially during the period of Atty. Atienzas hospital confinement. As party litigants, they should have
constantly monitored the progress of their case. Having completely entrusted their case to their former
counsel and believing his word that everything is alright, they have no one to blame but themselves
when it turned out that their opportunity to appeal and other remedies from the adverse ruling of the
RTC could no longer be availed of due to their counsels neglect. That respondents continued to rely on
the services of their counsel notwithstanding his chronic ailments that had him confined for long periods
at the hospital is unthinkable. Such negligence of counsel is binding on the client, especially when the
latter offered no plausible
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
21

VOL. 657, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011
21
Manila vs. Gallardo-Manzo
explanation for his own inaction. The Court has held that when a party retains the services of a lawyer,
he is bound by his counsels actions and decisions regarding the conduct of the case. This is true
especially where he does not complain against the manner his counsel handles the suit. The oft-
repeated principle is that an action for annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for the lost
remedy of appeal.
Same; Same; Same; In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner
must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdictionlack of
jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of
the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.Lack of
jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. In a petition for annulment of judgment
based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but
an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court
should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over
the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is conferred by law.
Same; Same; Same; The erroneous grant of relief by the Regional Trial Court on appeal is but an exercise
of jurisdiction by said courtthe ground for annulment of the decision is absence of, or no, jurisdiction;
that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with
jurisdiction over the subject matter; The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acted in excess of its jurisdiction in
deciding the appeal when, instead of simply dismissing the complaint and awarding any counterclaim for
costs due to the defendants, it ordered the lessors to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of the
lessees, on the basis of its own interpretation of the Contract of Lease which granted petitioners the
option to buy the leased premises within a certain period and for a fixed price.In this case, the RTC
acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding the appeal of respondents when, instead of simply
dismissing the complaint and awarding any counterclaim for costs due to the defendants (petitioners), it
ordered the respondents-lessors to execute a deed of absolute
22

22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Manila vs. Gallardo-Manzo
sale in favor of the petitioners-lessees, on the basis of its own interpretation of the Contract of Lease
which granted petitioners the option to buy the leased premises within a certain period (two years from
date of execution) and for a fixed price (P150,000.00). This cannot be done in an ejectment case where
the only issue for resolution is who between the parties is entitled to the physical possession of the
property. Such erroneous grant of relief to the defendants on appeal, however, is but an exercise of
jurisdiction by the RTC. Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from
the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered
therein. The ground for annulment of the decision is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court
should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over
the subject matter.
Same; Same; Laches; Doctrine of Stale Demands; The principle of laches or stale demands ordains that
the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by
exercising due diligence could or should have been done earliernegligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable timewarrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has
abandoned it or declined to assert it.On the timeliness of the petition for annulment of judgment filed
with the CA, Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for annulment of judgment
based on extrinsic fraud must be filed within four years from its discovery; and if based on lack of
jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. The principle of laches or stale demands ordains
that the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by
exercising due diligence could or should have been done earliernegligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has
abandoned it or declined to assert it. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness
of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances. [Manila vs. Gallardo-
Manzo, 657 SCRA 20(2011)]




Remedial Law; Documentary; Evidence; When the original document has been lost and its unavailability
has been established, a party may prove its contents by a copy or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic document or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.Section 5, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Evidence provides that when the original document has been lost and its unavailability has been
established, a party may prove its contents by a copy or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. Copies of the challenged reconstitution
orders from the LRA or the Register of Deeds are of course available to petitioner Baguio Trinity. But it
could just as validly submit faithful copies of its challenged reconstitution orders, authenticated by a
verified statement that these are copies of the original orders. The Baguio Trinity did. Consequently, the
CA had no valid reason denying its petition for failure to attach a copy of the assailed reconstitution
orders.
Same; Action; Laches; It is not right for the Court of Appeals (CA) to dismiss such action by reason of
laches simply because no inaction is evident on Baguio Trinitys part.Baguio Trinity finally filed before
the CA an action for annulment of the reconstitution orders on the ground that the RTC did not have
jurisdiction to issue them. It is not right for the CA to dismiss such action by reason of laches simply
because no inaction is evident on Baguio Trinitys part. In fact, it had been an unintentional object of
relay between the lower courts which contributed to the delay in the proceedings. [Baguio Trinity
Developers, Inc. vs. Heirs of Jose Ramos, 662 SCRA 663(2011)]




Land Titles; Reconstitution; If an owners duplicate copy of a certificate of title has not been lost but is in
fact in possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision
has not acquired jurisdiction.The present case is on all fours with the Strait Times case, in that the trial
court could not have validly acquired jurisdiction to reconstitute the alleged lost owners duplicate copy
of TCT No. T-16156 since the same was not lost but was in the possession of petitioners who had
purchased the property from its late owner. Such being the case, the Order of the trial court dated
March 27, 2001 directing the reconstitution could
_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
402

402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Villanueva vs. Viloria
not have become final and executory, it being void for lack of jurisdiction. [Villanueva vs. Viloria, 548
SCRA 401(2008)]





Actions; Judgments; Annulment of Judgment; Criminal Law; The remedy of annulment of judgment
cannot be resorted to when the Regional Trial Court judgment being questioned was rendered in a
criminal case.Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, limits the scope of the remedy of annulment of
judgment to the following: Section 1. Coverage.This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of
Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of the petitioner. The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment
being questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure itself
does not permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provisions of the
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases. Section 18,
Rule 124 thereof, provides: Sec. 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases.The
provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals and in the
Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are
applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
Same; Same; Same; Fraud; Extrinsic or collateral fraud is trickery practiced by the prevailing party upon
the unsuccessful party, which prevents the latter from fully proving his caseit affects not the judgment
itself but the manner in which said judgment is obtained.A petition for annulment of judgment is a
remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are
wanting, and only if the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or
through proceedings attended by extrinsic fraud. When the ground invoked is extrinsic fraud, annulment
of judgment must be sought within four
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
624

624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Bitanga
years from discovery of the fraud, which fact should be alleged and proven. In addition, the particular
acts or omissions constituting extrinsic fraud must be clearly established. Extrinsic or collateral fraud is
trickery practiced by the prevailing party upon the unsuccessful party, which prevents the latter from
fully proving his case. It affects not the judgment itself but the manner in which said judgment is
obtained.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Attorneys; Extrinsic fraud is that perpetrated by the prevailing party, not by
the unsuccessful partys own counsel; As a general rule, counsels ineptitude is not a ground to annul
judgment, for the latters management of the case binds his client.Extrinsic fraud is that perpetrated
by the prevailing party, not by the unsuccessful partys own counsel. As a general rule, counsels
ineptitude is not a ground to annul judgment, for the latters management of the case binds his client.
The rationale behind this rule is that, once retained, counsel holds the implied authority to do all acts
which are necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of
his client, and any act performed by said counsel within the scope of such authority is, in the eyes of the
law, regarded as the act of the client himself. There is an exception to the foregoing rule, and that is
when the negligence of counsel had been so egregious that it prejudiced his clients interest and denied
him his day in court. For this exception to apply, however, the gross negligence of counsel should not be
accompanied by his clients own negligence or malice. Clients have the duty to be vigilant of their
interests by keeping themselves up to date on the status of their case. Failing in this duty, they suffer
whatever adverse judgment is rendered against them.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Acts and omissions attributed to counsel amounting to negligence only
cannot be considered extrinsic fraud.In the present case, the acts and omissions attributed to counsel
amounted to negligence only, which cannot be considered extrinsic fraud. Moreover, said counsels
negligence was caused by Bitangas act of jumping bail. There appears to be no issue about how Atty.
Razon represented Bitanga during the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution. The CA itself
noted that during said period, Atty. Razon conducted the cross-examination and recross-examination of
the witnesses for the prosecution. [People vs. Bitanga, 525 SCRA 623(2007)]






Civil Procedure; Judgments; Doctrine of Finality of Judgments; Judgment of courts or awards of quasi-
judicial bodies even if erroneous must become final at a definite time appointed by law.No doctrine is
more sacrosanct than that judgments of courts or awards of quasi-judicial bodies, even if erroneous,
must become final at a defi-
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
531

VOL. 516, FEBRUARY 23, 2007
531
Fraginal vs. Heirs of Toribia Belmonte Paraal
nite time appointed by law. This doctrine of finality of judgments is the bedrock of every stable judicial
system. However, the doctrine of finality of judgments permits certain equitable remedies; and one of
them is a petition for annulment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Same; Annulment of Judgments; The remedy of annulment of judgment is extraordinary in
character and will not so easily and readily lend itself to abuse by parties aggrieved by final judgments.
The remedy of annulment of judgment is extraordinary in character, and will not so easily and readily
lend itself to abuse by parties aggrieved by final judgments. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 impose strict
conditions for recourse to it, viz.: Section 1. Coverage.This Rule shall govern the annulment by the
Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for
which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are
no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Section 2. Grounds for annulment.The
annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud
shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or
petition for relief.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Section 1 of Rule 47 clearly limits the subject matter of petitioners for
annulment to final judgments and orders rendered by Regional Trial Courts in civil actions.It sought
the annulment of the PARAD Decision when Section 1 of Rule 47 clearly limits the subject matter of
petitions for annulment to final judgments and orders rendered by Regional Trial Courts in civil actions.
Final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial tribunals or administrative bodies such as the National Labor
Relations Commission, the Ombudsman, the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the President, and,
in this case, the PARAD, are not susceptible to petitions for annulment under Rule 47.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Direct recourse to a petition for annulment of judgment not allowed if other
appropriate remedies are available such as a petition for new trial and a petition for relief from
judgment or an appeal.Section 1, Rule 47 does not allow a direct recourse to a petition for annulment
of judgment if other appropriate remedies are available, such as a petition for new trial, and a petition
for relief from judgment or an appeal.
532

532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Fraginal vs. Heirs of Toribia Belmonte Paraal
Same; Same; Same; Same; Petition for annulment of a final Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD) decision not allowed under the 1994 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB), New Rules of Procedures.The 1994 DARAB New Rules of Procedures, which was applicable
at the time the PARAD Decision was issued, provided for the following mode of appeal: Rule XIII, Section
1. Appeal to the Board. a) An appeal may be taken from an order, resolution or decision of the
Adjudicator to the Board by either of the parties or both, orally or in writing, within a period of fifteen
(15) days from receipt of the order, resolution or decision appealed from, and serving a copy thereof on
the adverse party, if the appeal is in writing. b) An oral appeal shall be reduced into writing by the
Adjudicator to be signed by the appellant, and a copy thereof shall be served upon the adverse party
within ten (10) days from the taking of the oral appeal. It does not allow for a petition for annulment of
a final PARAD Decision. [Fraginal vs. Heirs of Toribia Belmonte Paraal, 516 SCRA 530(2007)]





Actions; Judgments; Rule 47 applies only to petitions for nullification of judgments rendered by regional
trial courts filed with the Court of Appealsit does not pertain to the nullification of decisions of the
Court of Appeals.The annulment of judgments, as a recourse, is equitable in character, allowed only in
exceptional cases, as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. It is generally governed by
Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 1 thereof expressly states that the Rule shall
govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil action
of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
** Petitioner Estanislao Quibal, representing the heirs of Rosita Grande-Quibal, is also identified as
Estanislao Quibial, representing the heirs of Rosita-Qubial, in the decisions of the Court of Appeals and
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
68

68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Grande vs. University of the Philippines
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Clearly, Rule 47 applies
only to petitions for the nullification of judgments rendered by regional trial courts filed with the Court
of Appeals. It does not pertain to the nullification of decisions of the Court of Appeals.
Same; Same; Jurisdictions; Petitions for annulment of judgment are not among the cases originally
cognizable by the Supreme Court.Petitioners argue that although Rule 47 is a newly-established rule,
the procedure of annulment of judgments has long been recognized in this jurisdiction. That may be so,
but this Court has no authority to take cognizance of an original action for annulment of judgment of
any lower court. The only original cases cognizable before this Court are petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members of the
judiciary and attorneys, and cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls. Petitions
for annulment of judgment are not among the cases originally cognizable by this Court.
Same; Same; Same; It is totally inappropriate to extend Rule 47 to the review of decisions of the Court of
Appeals.If what is desired is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals, which petitioners could
have been entitled to under ordinary circumstances, the only mode of appeal cognizable by this Court is
a petition for review on certiorari. That is governed by and disposed of in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Constitution, laws, Rules 45; 48; Sections 1, 2, and 5 to 11 of Rules 51; 52;
and 56. Notably, Rule 47 on annulment of judgments has nothing to do with the provisions which govern
petitions for review on certiorari. Thus, it is totally inappropriate to extend Rule 47 to the review of
decisions of the Court of Appeals. Then too, appeals by certiorari to this Court must be filed within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or the final order or resolution appealed from. Even if we
were to treat the petition for annulment of judgment as an appeal by certiorari, the same could not be
given due course as it had been filed several months after the Court of Appeals decision had already
lapsed to finality.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court has discretionary power to take cognizance of a petition over
which it ordinarily has no
69

VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
69
Grande vs. University of the Philippines
jurisdiction if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the
immediate exercise of its jurisdiction.This Court has discretionary power to take cognizance of a
petition over which it ordinarily has no jurisdiction if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance
of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence, in Del Mar v. Phil.
Amusement and Gaming Corp., 346 SCRA 485 (2000), the Court took cognizance of an original petition
for injunction after determining that the allegations therein revealed that it was actually one for
prohibition. We, however, cannot adopt that tack for purposes of this case. Ostensibly, even if the
averments in the present petition sufficiently present the existence of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and on that basis it could be treated as a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65, still it could not be given due course since it was filed way beyond the
period for filing such special civil action. Moreover, certiorari can only lie if there is no appeal, nor any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law [Grande vs. University of the
Philippines, 502 SCRA 67(2006)]





Remedial Law; Appeals; Under Section 2, Rule 64 of the Revised Rule of Civil Procedure, a judgment or
final order or resolution
_______________

* EN BANC.
680

680
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Verzosa, Jr. vs. Carague
of the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari
under Rule 65.To begin with, petitioner availed of the wrong remedy in filing a petition for review
under Rule 45. Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that decisions, orders or rulings of the
Commission on Audit may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party.
Moreover, under Section 2, Rule 64, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment or final order or
resolution of the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on
certiorari under Rule 65.
Commission on Audit; Bids and Bidding; Price is considered excessive if it is more than the 10%
allowable price variance between the price paid for the item bought and the price of the same item per
canvass of the auditor; Factors to consider in determining whether or not the price is excessive.Price is
considered excessive if it is more than the 10% allowable price variance between the price paid for the
item bought and the price of the same item per canvass of the auditor. In determining whether or not
the price is excessive, the following factors may be considered: ASupply and demand forces in the
market. Ex.Where there is a supply shortage of a particular product, such as cement or GI sheets,
prices of these products may vary within a day. BGovernment Price Quotations CWarranty of
Products or Special Features The price is not necessarily excessive when the service/item is offered with
warranty or special features which are relevant to the needs of the agency and are reflected in the offer
or award. DBrand of Products Products of recognized brand coming from countries known for
producing such quality products are relatively expensive. Ex.Solingen scissors and the like which are
made in Germany are more expensive than scissors which do not carry such brand and are not made in
Germany.
Same; Same; The conduct of public bidding in this case was not made objectively with the end in view of
purchasing quality equipment at the least cost to the government.Based on the foregoing findings and
observations supported by documentary evidence, respondents concluded that contrary to CDAs
claims, the difference in brands, microprocessors, BIOSes, as well as casings will not affect the efficiency
of the computers performance. Clearly, the conduct of public bidding in this case was not made
objectively with the end in view of purchasing quality equipment at the least cost to the gov-
681

VOL. 644, MARCH 8, 2011
681
Verzosa, Jr. vs. Carague
ernment. The price difference far exceeded the 10% allowable variance in the unit bought and the same
items price.
Same; Same; The continued serviceability of the purchased computers is not a factor in the
determination of whether the price paid by the government was unreasonable or excessive.The
continued serviceability of the purchased computers is not a factor in the determination of whether the
price paid by the government was unreasonable or excessive. The damage or injury caused to the
government refers primarily to the amount exceeding the allowable variance in the price paid for the
item purchased under a transaction which is not the most advantageous to the government. In this case,
it was clearly shown that CDA could have purchased the same quality computers with similar technical
specifications at much lower cost and the result of technical evaluation was manipulated to favor one
bidder, for which the COA found the petitioner to be directly responsible.
SERENO, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Commission on Audit; Bids and Bidding; The Commission on Audit (COA) cannot violate the same rules it
imposes on all public offices regarding the manner of conducting canvasses.The Commission on Audit
(COA) cannot violate the same rules it imposes on all public offices regarding the manner of conducting
canvasses. These rules essentially require that written canvasses be made of the same item from at least
three suppliers, using the proper canvass forms. The COA itself cannot violate these rules by disallowing
purchases merely on the basis of an alleged overpricing.
Same; Same; There is no legal basis to make the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) Executive
Director personally liable for the return of the disallowance.There is no legal basis to make the CDA
Executive Director personally liable for the return of the disallowance. He has demonstrated that his act
of signing the purchase documents was only ministerial, as the Pre-qualification Bids and Awards
Committee (PBAC) and the Board of Administrators (BOA) acted on them.
Same; Same; The principle of transparency should apply with more reason to instances when the
information represented from the PED-750 may result in a finding of liability against a government
682

682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Verzosa, Jr. vs. Carague
official.The primary principle which the resolution upholds is that of transparency. Thus, the
application of the resolution is not merely limited to the determination of possible sources of supplies.
The principle of transparency should apply with more reason to instances when the information
requested from the PED-TSO may result in a finding of liability against a government official.
Same; Same; It is clear that respondents bases for holding petitioner liable is unsubstantiated and based
on mere speculations and conjecture.It is therefore clear that respondents basis for holding
petitioner liable is unsubstantiated and based on mere speculations and conjecture. First, no actual
canvass was made; and second, it appears that no valid comparison was conducted either.
Same; Same; The powers of Commission on Audit (COA) do not include the power to substitute its own
preference over that of a government agency or to dictate which equipment is better or more
appropriate without following the requirements of due process.The 1987 Constitution provides that
the powers of COA include the power to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations,
including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties. These powers, however, do
not include the power to substitute its own preference over that of a government agency; or to dictate
which equipment is better or more appropriate without following the requirements of due process.
Same; Same; Due Process; It is basic tenet in the observance of administrative due process that the
tribunal or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of law and facts of the
controversy and not simply accept the views of the subordinate.It is a basic tenet in the observance of
administrative due process that the tribunal or any of its judges must act on its own independent
consideration of law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of the subordinate. In
the case at bar, respondents erroneously relied solely on the Indorsement of auditor Rubico for the
disallowance despite the absence of substantial evidence to support the claim.
683

VOL. 644, MARCH 8, 2011
683
Verzosa, Jr. vs. Carague
Same; Same; As a public official, petitioner is assumed to have performed his functions regularly; The
burden to prove otherwise rests on respondents.As a public official, petitioner is assumed to have
performed his functions regularly. The burden to prove otherwise rests on respondents. In the case at
bar, not only did respondents fail to substantiate their allegations; worse, they violated petitioners right
to due process. There is no legal basis to make him personally liable for the disallowance. [Verzosa, Jr.
vs. Carague, 644 SCRA 679(2011)]









Special Civil Actions; Appeals; Mandamus; Certiorari; As extraordinary writs, both Sections 1 (certiorari)
and 3 (mandamus), Rule 65 of the Rules of Court require, as a pre-condition for these remedies, that
there be no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.As extraordinary
writs, both Sections 1
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
581

VOL. 658, OCTOBER 5, 2011
581
Quarto vs. Marcelo
(certiorari) and 3 (mandamus), Rule 65 of the Rules of Court require, as a pre-condition for these
remedies, that there be no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Same; Same; Same; In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only
be resorted to, to compel the respondent to take action; it cannot be used to direct the manner or the
particular way discretion is to be exercised.Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the
performance of a ministerial duty imposed by law upon the respondent. In matters involving the
exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to, to compel the respondent to
take action; it cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised.
Same; Same; Same; Ombudsman; If, on the basis of the same evidence, the Ombudsman arbitrarily
excludes from an indictment some individuals while impleading all others, the remedy of mandamus lies
since he is duty-bound, as a rule, to include in the information all persons who appear responsible for
the offense involved.If, on the basis of the same evidence, the Ombudsman arbitrarily excludes from
an indictment some individuals while impleading all others, the remedy of mandamus lies since he is
duty-bound, as a rule, to include in the information all persons who appear responsible for the offense
involved.
Immunity from Suit; The power to grant immunity from prosecution is essentially a legislative
prerogative.The power to grant immunity from prosecution is essentially a legislative prerogative. The
exclusive power of Congress to define crimes and their nature and to provide for their punishment
concomitantly carries the power to immunize certain persons from prosecution to facilitate the
attainment of state interests, among them, the solution and prosecution of crimes with high political,
social and economic impact.
Same; The authority to choose the individual to whom immunity would be granted is a constituent part
of the process and is essentially an executive function.While the legislature is the source of the power
to grant immunity, the authority to implement is lodged elsewhere. The authority to choose the
individual to whom immunity would be granted is a constituent part of the process and is essentially an
executive function.
582

582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Quarto vs. Marcelo
Same; Ombudsman; An immunity statute does not, and cannot, rule out a review by this Court of the
Ombudsmans exercise of discretion.An immunity statute does not, and cannot, rule out a review by
this Court of the Ombudsmans exercise of discretion. Like all other officials under our constitutional
scheme of government, all their acts must adhere to the Constitution.
Administrative Proceedings; An administrative case is altogether different from a criminal case, such
that the disposition in the former does not necessarily result in the same disposition for the latter,
although both may arise from the same set of facts.The fact that the respondents had previously been
found administratively liable, based on the same set of facts, does not necessarily make them the most
guilty. An administrative case is altogether different from a criminal case, such that the disposition in
the former does not necessarily result in the same disposition for the latter, although both may arise
from the same set of facts. The most that we can read from the finding of liability is that the
respondents have been found to be administratively guilty by substantial evidencethe quantum of
proof required in an administrative proceeding.
Immunity from Suit; Ombudsman; The Court reiterates its policy of non-interference with the
Ombudsmans exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers and respects the initiative and
independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the
people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service.Consistent with this purpose and
subject to the command of paragraph 2, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Court
reiterates its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsmans exercise of his investigatory and
prosecutory powers (among them, the power to grant immunity to witnesses), and respects the
initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the
champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service. *Quarto vs. Marcelo,
658 SCRA 580(2011)]









Actions; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Injunctions; The mere elevation of an interlocutory matter to
this Court does not by itself merit a suspension of the proceedings before a public respondent, unless a
temporary restraining order or writ of injunction has been issued against a public respondent.The
mere elevation of an interlocutory matter to this Court through a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, like in the present case, does not by itself merit a suspension of the proceedings
before a public respondent, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has
been issued against the public respondent.
Same; Same; Same; The burden is thus on the petitioner in a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus to show that there is a meritorious ground for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
or a writ of preliminary injunction for the purpose of suspending the proceedings before the public
respondent.The burden is thus on the petitioner in a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus to show that there is a meritorious ground for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
or writ of preliminary injunction for the purpose of suspending the proceedings before the public
respondent. Essential for granting injunctive relief is the existence of an urgent necessity for the writ in
order to prevent serious damage.
Same; Same; Same; There are instances where even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a lower court or court of
origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy.There are of course instances
where even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a
749

VOL. 492, JUNE 26, 2006
749
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
higher court, it would be proper for a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the
precept of judicial courtesy. As this Court explained in Eternal Gardens Memorial Park v. Court of
Appeals, 164 SCRA 421, 427-428 (1988): Although this Court did not issue any restraining order against
the Intermediate Appellate Court to prevent it from taking any action with regard to its resolutions
respectively granting respondents motion to expunge from the records the petitioners motion to
dismiss and denying the latters motion to reconsider such order, upon learning of the petition, the
appellate court should have refrained from ruling thereon because its jurisdiction was necessarily
limited upon the filing of a petition for certiorari with this Court questioning the propriety of the
issuance of the above-mentioned resolutions. Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical and
ethical considerations should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the final determination of
the petition before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render moot exactly what was before this
court x x x
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The rule on judicial courtesy applies where there is a strong
probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of
the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court *or court of origin+.This Court explained,
however, that the rule on judicial courtesy applies where there is a strong probability that the issues
before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the
proceedings in the lower court *or court of origin+. *Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 492 SCRA 747(2006)+








Appeals; Certiorari; Where petitioner Maralit questioned the appellate courts admission and
appreciation of a belatedly submitted documentary evidence, the court held *i+n a special civil action
for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to receive new evidence and perform any act
necessary to resolve factual issues.In Maralit v. Philippine National Bank, 596 SCRA 662 (2009),
where petitioner Maralit questioned the appellate courts admission and appreciation of a belatedly
submitted documentary evidence, the Court held that *i+n a special civil action for certiorari, the Court
of Appeals has ample authority to receive new evidence and perform any act necessary to resolve
factual issues. The Court explained further: Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, states
that, The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence
and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original
and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings.
Same; Same; [I]t is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7902 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, amending for the
purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980), the Court of Appealspursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over Petitions for
Certiorariis specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve
factual issues.Likewise, in VMC Rural Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 504 SCRA
336 (2006), the Court held: *I+t is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7902 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, amending
for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appealspursuant to the exercise
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
517

VOL. 647, APRIL 11, 2011
517
Marcelo vs. LBC Bank
of its original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorariis specifically given the power to pass upon the
evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues. As clearly stated in Section 9 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act 7902: The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try
cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant
and conduct new trials or further proceedings. x x x. *Marcelo vs. LBC Bank, 647 SCRA 516(2011)+





Actions; Indispensable Parties; Words and Phrases; An indispensable party is a party who has such an
interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence,
without injuring or affecting that interest, a party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of
the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature that a final
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
458

458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Siok Ping Tang vs. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc.
decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that
its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.In Arcelona v.
Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 20 (1997), we stated the nature of indispensable party, thus: An
indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final
adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest, a party who has
not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature that
a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a
condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has
also been considered that an indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a
determination between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.
Further, an indispensable party is one who must be included in an action before it may properly go
forward. A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject
matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or
injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an
indispensable party if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already
parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter of the action. It is not a sufficient
reason to declare a person to be an indispensable party that his presence will avoid multiple litigation.
Same; Parties; In filing the petition for certiorari, the petitioner should join as party defendant with the
court or judge, the person interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court, and it shall be the duty
of such person to appear and defend, both in his own behalf and in behalf of the court or judge affected
by the proceedings.In filing the petition for certiorari, respondent should join as party defendant with
the court or judge, the person interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court, and it shall be the
duty of such person to appear and defend, both in his own behalf and in behalf of the court or judge
affected by the proceedings. In this case, there is no doubt that it is only the petitioner who is the
person interested in sustaining the proceedings in court since she was the one who sought for the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the banks from releasing funds to respondent. As
earlier discussed, the banks are not parties interested in the subject matter of the petition. Thus, it is
only petitioner who should be joined as party defendant with the judge and who should defend the
judges issuance of injunction.
459

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 15, 2010
459
Siok Ping Tang vs. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc.
Certiorari; Motion for Reconsideration; A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the
filing of a petition for certiorari; Exceptions.The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a
condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for
the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and
factual circumstances of the case. The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such
as (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo had no jurisdiction; (b) where the
questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court,
or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent
necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the
Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due
process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of
arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings
in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte, or in
which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or
where public interest is involved. [Siok Ping Tang vs. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., 638 SCRA 457(2010)]






Judgments; Appeals; Certiorari; Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal
soundness of the decision, not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision, the same is beyond
the province of a special civil action for certiorari.While petitioners would insist that the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion, this Court is of the opinion, however, that the assailed Decision
and Resolution of the CA, granting the forfeiture of the performance bond among others, amount to
nothing more than errors of judgment, correctible by appeal. When a court, tribunal, or officer has
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions
arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise
of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence,
errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari. If every error
committed by the trial court or quasi-judicial agency were to be the proper subject of a special civil
action for certiorari, then trial would never end and the dockets of appellate courts would be clogged
beyond measure. For this reason, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal
soundness of the decision, not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision, the same is beyond
the province of a special civil action for certiorari. Since petitioners filed the instant special civil action
for certiorari, instead of appeal via a petition for review, the petition should be dismissed.
Same; Same; Same; A liberal application of the rules cannot be made to a petition which offers no
explanation for the non-observance of the rules.Petitioners ask for leniency from this Court, asking for
a liberal application of the rules. However, it is quite apparent that petitioners offer no explanation as to
why they did not appeal under
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
23

VOL. 621, JUNE 16, 2010
23
Artistica Ceramica, Inc. vs. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association
Rule 45. Petitioners Petition, Reply and Memorandum are all silent on this point, probably hoping that
the same would go unnoticed by respondents and by this Court. The attempt to skirt away from the fact
that the 15-day period to file an appeal under Rule 45 had already lapsed is made even more apparent
when even after the same was raised in issue by respondents in their Comment and memorandum,
petitioners did not squarely address the same, nor offer any explanation for such omission. In Jan-Dec
Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 481 SCRA 556 (2006), this Court explained why a liberal
application of the rules cannot be made to a petition which offers no explanation for the non-
observance of the rules, to wit: While there are instances where the extraordinary remedy of certiorari
may be resorted to despite the availability of an appeal, the long line of decisions denying the special
civil action for certiorari, either before appeal was availed of or in instances where the appeal period
had lapsed, far outnumbers the instances where certiorari was given due course. The few significant
exceptions are: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; (b) when the
broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the questioned
order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
Same; Same; Same; While this Court has in the past allowed the relaxing of the rules on the
reglementary periods of appeal, it must be stressed that there must be a showing of an extraordinary or
exceptional circumstance to warrant such liberality.In Republic v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA 63
(2000), this Court did not apply a liberal construction of the rules for failure of petitioner to offer an
explanation as to why the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period provided for under Rule
45, to wit: Admittedly, this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and
in the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under
Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.In this case,
however, we find no reason to justify a liberal application of the rules. The petition was filed well
beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review without any reason therefor. While this
Court has in the past allowed the relaxing of the rules on the reglementary periods of appeal, it must be
stressed that there must be a showing of an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance to warrant such
liberality. [Artistica Ceramica, Inc. vs. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, 621 SCRA 22(2010)]





Certiorari; As a general rule, the petition for certiorari shall be filed within the 60-day reglementary
period. As an exception, an extension of time may be granted but only for a compelling reason and only
for 15 days.Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 4. When and where petition
filed.The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or
resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is
required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
x x x x No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no
case exceeding fifteen (15) days. It is thus explicit from the foregoing that as a general rule, the petition
shall be filed within the 60-day reglementary period. As an exception, an extension of time may be
granted but only for a compelling reason and only for 15 days. More important, the discretion to grant
or deny said request lies solely in the court. Hence, the party requesting such extension must not expect
that his request will be granted as he has no inherent right to the same.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
451

VOL. 676, JULY 16, 2012
451
Heirs of Ramon B. Gayares vs. Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation
Same; Heavy Pressure of Work; Heavy pressure of work is not considered compelling reason to justify a
request for an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari. Heavy workload is relative and often
self-serving.It is settled jurisprudence that heavy pressure of work is not considered compelling
reason to justify a request for an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari. Heavy workload is
relative and often self-serving. Standing alone, it is not a sufficient reason to deviate from the 60-day
rule. In Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, 386 SCRA 85 (2002), therein petitioners counsel cited heavy
workload in seeking the courts leniency. However, the same was rebuffed by the Court ratiocinating
that such circumstance alone does not provide the court sufficient reason to merit allowance of an
extension of the 60-day period to file the petition for certiorari. Heavy workload x x x ought to be
coupled with more compelling reasons such as illness of counsel or other emergencies that could be
substantiated by affidavits of merit. *Heirs of Ramon B. Gayares vs. Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping
Corporation, 676 SCRA 450(2012)]



Remedial Law; Certiorari; Motion for Reconsideration; The general rule is that a motion for
reconsideration of the challenged order is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action of certiorari
in a higher court to annul such order; One of the exceptions to such requirement is where the matter
involved is urgent.The general rule is of course that a motion for reconsideration of the challenged
order is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action of certiorari in a higher court to annul such
order. This gives the lower
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
378

378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Florendo vs. Paramount Insurance Corp.
court a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. But one of the exceptions to such requirement is
where the matter involved is urgent. Here, the CA correctly dispensed with the requirement since the
RTC had already issued a writ of execution and so its enforcement was imminent. Besides, the issue of
the validity of the execution pending appeal in this case was a pure question of law.
Same; Judgments; Execution Pending Appeal; Good Reasons; Instances when execution will issue as a
matter of right; Execution pending appeal is the exception to the general rule.Normally, execution will
issue as a matter of right only (a) when the judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the
judgment debtor has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c) when the period for appeal has lapsed
without an appeal having been filed; or (d) when, having been filed, the appeal has been resolved and
the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin. Execution pending appeal is the
exception to the general rule.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Courts discretion in allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly
grounded on the existence of good reasons; Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances that
justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory.As such exception, the courts
discretion in allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the existence of good
reasons. Good reasons, it has been held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify immediate
execution lest the judgment becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the
injury or damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment. Lesser
reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, a
tool of oppression and inequity. [Florendo vs. Paramount Insurance Corp., 610 SCRA 377(2010)]




Writ of Amparo; Evidence; Witnesses; Judicial Notice; The Court takes judicial notice of its Decision in
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, 568 SCRA 1 (2008), which assessed the account of Manalo to
be a candid and forthright narrative of his and his brother Reynaldos abduction by the military in 2006,
there is no compelling reason for the Court, in the present case, to disturb its appreciation in Manalos
testimony.The Court takes judicial notice of its Decision in the just cited Secretary of National Defense
v. Manalo, 568 SCRA 1 (2008), which assessed the account of Manalo to be a candid and forthright
narrative of his and his brother Reynaldos abduction by the military in 2006; and of the corroborative
testimonies, in the same case, of Manalos brother Reynaldo and a forensic specialist, as well as
Manalos graphic description of the detention area. There is thus no compelling reason for the Court, in
the present case, to disturb its appreciation in Manalos testimony. The outright denial of petitioners Lt.
Col. Boac, et al. thus crumbles.
Same; Parties; Habeas Corpus; The exclusive and successive order mandated by Section 2 of the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo must be followed since the order of priority is not without reasonto prevent the
indiscriminate and groundless filing of petitions for amparo which may even prejudice the right to life,
liberty or security of the aggrieved party.Petitioners finally point out that the parents of Sherlyn and
Karen do not have the requisite standing to file the amparo petition on behalf of Merino. They call
attention to the fact that in the amparo petition, the parents of Sherlyn and Karen merely indicated that
they were concerned with Manuel Merino as basis for filing the petition on his behalf. Section 2 of the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides: The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any
qualified person or entity in the following order: (a) Any member of the immediate family, namely: the
spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party; (b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative
of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or (c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association or
institution, if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
Indeed, the parents of Sherlyn and Karen failed to allege that there were no known members of the
immediate family or relatives of
620

620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Boac vs. Cadapan
Merino. The exclusive and successive order mandated by the above-quoted provision must be followed.
The order of priority is not without reasonto prevent the indiscriminate and groundless filing of
petitions for amparo which may even prejudice the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved
party.
Same; Same; Habeas Corpus; In a habeas corpus proceeding, any person may apply for the writ on
behalf of the aggrieved party.The Court notes that the parents of Sherlyn and Karen also filed the
petition for habeas corpus on Merinos behalf. No objection was raised therein for, in a habeas corpus
proceeding, any person may apply for the writ on behalf of the aggrieved party. It is thus only with
respect to the amparo petition that the parents of Sherlyn and Karen are precluded from filing the
application on Merinos behalf as they are not authorized parties under the Rule.
Presidency; Presidential Immunity; Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office
or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it
in the Constitution or lawit will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of
State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such.The Court finds the appellate
courts dismissal of the petitions against then President Arroyo well-taken, owing to her immunity from
suit at the time the habeas corpus and amparo petitions were filed. Settled is the doctrine that the
President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case,
and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high
office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as
such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or
distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike
the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs
his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the
Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. x x x Parenthetically, the petitions are
bereft of any allegation that then President Arroyo permitted, condoned or performed any wrongdoing
against the three missing persons.
621

VOL. 649, MAY 31, 2011
621
Boac vs. Cadapan
Writs of Amparo; Command Responsibility; The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds
its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats; Command responsibility is properly a
form of criminal complicity, and thus a substantive rule that points to criminal or administrative
liability.Rubrico v. Macapagal Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233 (2010), expounded on the concept of command
responsibility as follows: The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the
development of laws of war and armed combats. According to Fr. Bernas, command responsibility, in
its simplest terms, means the responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate
members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic
conflict. In this sense, command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague
Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility, foreshadowing the present-day
precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be
remiss in his duty of control over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is an omission
mode of individual criminal liability, whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by
his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he ordered).
(citations omitted; emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied) It bears stressing that command
responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity, and thus a substantive rule that points to criminal
or administrative liability.
Same; Same; An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of
individuals or entities involved, and neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suitrather, it is a
remedial measure designed to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard
the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of aggrieved individuals.An amparo proceeding is
not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved.
Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suit. Rather, it is a remedial measure designed to
direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life,
liberty and security of aggrieved individuals. Thus Razon Jr. v. Tagitis, 606 SCRA 598 (2009), enlightens:
[An amparo proceeding] does nor determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance
[threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]; it determines re-
622

622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Boac vs. Cadapan
sponsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearancefor purposes of imposing the
appropriate remedies to address the disappearance (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Responsibility and Accountability, Explained.Tagitis defines what
constitutes responsibility and accountability, viz.: x x x. Responsibility refers to the extent the actors
have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or
omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among
them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the
proper courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be
addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level
of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge
relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but
have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
disappearance. In all these cases, the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of
addressing the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are
restored. (emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
Same; Same; While the concept of command responsibility does not apply in amparo cases to determine
criminal liability, it may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable
individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would
issuein such application, the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint
the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party.Rubrico
categorically denies the application of command responsibility in amparo cases to determine criminal
liability. The Court maintains its adherence to this pronouncement as far as amparo cases are
concerned. Rubrico, however, recognizes a preliminary yet limited application of command
responsibility in amparo cases to instances of determining the responsible or accountable individuals or
entities that are duty-bound to abate any transgression on the life, liberty or security of the aggrieved
party. If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to
623

VOL. 649, MAY 31, 2011
623
Boac vs. Cadapan
these proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine the author who, at the first instance, is
accountable for, and has the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments complained of, so as
to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect
rights covered by the writ of amparo. As intimated earlier, however, the determination should not be
pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to
administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative issuances, if there be any.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied) In other words, command responsibility may be loosely applied in
amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively
implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. In such application, the amparo court
does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best
position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party.
Same; Same; Statutes; Republic Act No. 9851 (RA 9851); Republic Act No. 9851 is the substantive law
that definitively imputes criminal liability to those superiors who, despite their position, still fail to take
all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of
illegal acts or to submit these matters to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
The legislature came up with Republic Act No. 9851 (RA 9851) to include command responsibility as a
form of criminal complicity in crimes against international humanitarian law, genocide and other crimes.
RA 9851 is thus the substantive law that definitively imputes criminal liability to those superiors who,
despite their position, still fail to take all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to
prevent or repress the commission of illegal acts or to submit these matters to the competent
authorities for investigation and prosecution.
Same; Same; The appellate court erred when it did not specifically name the respondents that it found
to be responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino.The Court
finds that the appellate court erred when it did not specifically name the respondents that it found to be
responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. For, from the
records, it appears that the responsible and account-
624

624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Boac vs. Cadapan
able individuals are Lt. Col. Anotado, Lt. Mirabelle, Gen. Palparan, Lt. Col. Boac, Arnel Enriquez and
Donald Caigas. They should thus be made to comply with the September 17, 2008 Decision of the
appellate court to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. The petitions against Generals
Esperon, Razon and Tolentino should be dismissed for lack of merit as there is no showing that they
were even remotely accountable and responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn,
Karen and Merino.
Same; Writs of Execution; There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas
corpus decision.Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to file a motion for
execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Since the right to life, liberty and security of a
person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must
be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may jeopardize the very rights
that these writs seek to immediately protect.
Same; Same; The Rules of Court only find suppletory application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules
strengthen, rather than weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writa motion for execution is
inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding.
The Solicitor Generals argument that the Rules of Court supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is
misplaced. The Rules of Court only find suppletory application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules
strengthen, rather than weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writ. As it is, the Rule dispenses with
dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party.
Suffice it to state that a motion for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious
remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding.
Same; Same; Summary Procedure; The appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately
release Sherlyn, Karen and Merino was not automatically executory; Summary proceedings, it bears
emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be taken
therefrom.The appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately release Sherlyn, Karen
and Merino was not automatically executory. For that would defeat the very purpose of having
summary proceedings in amparo petitions. Summary proceedings, it bears emphasis, are immediately
625

VOL. 649, MAY 31, 2011
625
Boac vs. Cadapan
executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be taken therefrom. [Boac vs. Cadapan, 649
SCRA 618(2011)]










EXECUTION AND SATISFACTION



Actions; Motions; Pleadings and Practice; Notice of Hearing; Service of a copy of a motion containing a
notice of the time and the place of hearing of that motion is a mandatory requirement, and the failure
of movants to comply with these requirements renders their motions fatally defective; Exceptions.We
have consistently held that a motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule
15 of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, which the Clerk of Court has no right
to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon. Service of a copy of a motion containing a
notice of the time and the place of hearing of that motion is a mandatory requirement, and the failure
of movants to comply with these requirements renders their motions fatally defective.
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
433

VOL. 541, DECEMBER 27, 2007
433
KKK Foundation, Inc. vs. Calderon-Bargas
However, there are exceptions to the strict application of this rule. These exceptions are: (1) where a
rigid application will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice especially if a party successfully
shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory judgment is not apparent on its face
or from the recitals contained therein; (2) where the interest of substantial justice will be served; (3)
where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the
court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Pr ocess; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; A notice of hearing is an
integral component of procedural due process to afford the adverse parties a chance to be heard before
a motion is resolved by the court; The notice requirement is not a ritual to be followed blindly
procedural due process is not based solely on a mechanical and literal application that renders any
deviation inexorably fatal.A notice of hearing is an integral component of procedural due process to
afford the adverse parties a chance to be heard before a motion is resolved by the court. Through such
notice, the adverse party is given time to study and answer the arguments in the motion. Records show
that while Angeless Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution contained a notice of hearing, it did not
particularly state the date and time of the hearing. However, we still find that petitioner was not denied
procedural due process. Upon receiving the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, the trial court
issued an Order dated September 9, 2002 giving petitioner ten (10) days to file its comment. The trial
court ruled on the motion only after the reglementary period to file comment lapsed. Clearly, petitioner
was given time to study and comment on the motion for which reason, the very purpose of a notice of
hearing had been achieved. The notice requirement is not a ritual to be followed blindly. Procedural due
process is not based solely on a mechanical and literal application that renders any deviation inexorably
fatal. Instead, procedural rules are liberally construed to promote their objective and to assist in
obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of any action and proceeding.
Judgments; Writs of Execution; Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it
life and exceeds it, it has
434

434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
KKK Foundation, Inc. vs. Calderon-Bargas
pro tanto no validity.Undoubtedly, the writ of execution imposed upon petitioner an alternative
obligation which was not included or contemplated in the Compromise Agreement. While the complaint
originally sought to restrain Angeles from consolidating her ownership to the foreclosed properties, that
has been superseded by the Compromise Agreement. Therefore, the writ of execution which directed
Sheriff Bisnar to cause the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal, to allow the consolidation of the subject
real properties in favor of the defendant Imelda Angeles is clearly erroneous because the judgment
under execution failed to provide for consolidation. Because the writ of execution varied the terms of
the judgment and exceeded them, it had no validity. The writ of execution must conform to the
judgment which is to be executed, as it may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.
Neither may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. Where the execution is not
in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity. [KKK
Foundation, Inc. vs. Calderon-Bargas, 541 SCRA 432(2007)]




Actions; Certiorari; Motions for Reconsideration; Pleadings and Practice; As a general rule, a petition for
certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given, through a
motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it; Exceptions.A petition for
certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given, through a
motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. This rule, though, has certain
exceptions, namely: (1)
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
554

554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
JP Latex Technology, Inc. vs. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc.
when the issue raised is purely of law; (2) when public interest is involved; or (3) in case of urgency. As a
fourth exception, the Court has ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of
the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non, when the questions raised are the same as those that
have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court.
Appeals; Execution Pending Appeal; Words and Phrases; Execution pending appeal or immediate
execution is now called discretionary execution.Execution pending appeal or immediate execution,
which is now called discretionary execution under Rule 39, Section 2(a), 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, is allowed pending appeal of a judgment or final order of the trial court, upon good reasons to
be stated in a special order after due hearing.
Same; Same; Motion for Reconsideration; Discretionary execution is allowed only when the period to
appeal has commenced but before the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case; The pendency of a
motion for reconsideration, therefore, prevents the running of the period to appeal.It is clear from the
caption of the provision that discretionary execution is allowed only when the period to appeal has
commenced but before the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case. The period to appeal where a
motion for reconsideration has been filed as in the instant case commences only upon the receipt of a
copy of the order disposing of the motion for reconsideration. The pendency of a motion for
reconsideration, therefore, prevents the running of the period to appeal.
Same; Same; Same; Where there is a pending motion for reconsideration of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) decision, an order execution pending appeal is improper and premature.Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision. The records of the case show that the motion had not
been acted upon by the RTC before it ruled on the motion for execution pending appeal. That being
the case, the pendency of the motion for reconsideration has prevented the period to appeal from even
commencing. The period within which a party may move for an execution pending appeal of the trial
courts decision has not yet also started. Where there is a pending motion for reconsideration of the RTC
decision, an order execution pending appeal is improper and premature. The pendency of the motion
for reconsideration legally precludes execution of the RTC decision because the motion serves as the
movants vehicle to
555

VOL. 581, MARCH 16, 2009
555
JP Latex Technology, Inc. vs. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc.
point out the findings and conclusions of the decision which, in his view, are not supported by law or the
evidence and, therefore, gives the trial judge the occasion to reverse himself. In the event that the trial
judge finds the motion for reconsideration meritorious, he can of course reverse the decision.
Same; Same; The good reasons allowing execution pending appeal must constitute superior
circumstances demanding urgency that will outweigh the injuries or damages to the adverse party if the
decision is reversed.The Court does not find any good reason to justify the execution of the RTC
decision pending finality. The RTCs finding that the machinery under litigation was deteriorating is not
supported by the evidence on record. Nor is the possibility that petitioner would not be able to pay the
judgment award a good reason to order discretionary execution. The good reasons allowing execution
pending appeal must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency that will outweigh the
injuries or damages to the adverse party if the decision is reversed. [JP Latex Technology, Inc. vs. Ballons
Granger Balloons, Inc., 581 SCRA 553(2009)]







Actions; Judgments; Execution by Motion; On meritorious grounds, execution of final judgment by mere
motion may be allowed even after the lapse of five years when delay in the execution is caused or
occasioned by the actions of the judgment debtor and/or incurred for his benefit.Under Rule 39,
Section 6, the rule is that a final judgment may be executed by mere motion within five years from the
date of entry of judgment. However, the rule is not absolute and admits one notable exception and that
is when the delay in enforcing the judgment is caused by the party assailing the filing of the motion. In
Republic v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 344 (1996), we declared that, on meritorious grounds, execution
of final judgment by mere motion may be allowed even after the lapse of five years when delay in the
execution is caused or occasioned by the actions of the judgment debtor and/or is incurred for his
benefit. Similarly, in Camacho v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 611 (1998), we ruled that the five-year
period allowed for enforcement of judgment by mere action is deemed effectively interrupted or
suspended when the delay in the execution is occasioned by the oppositors own initiatives in order to
gain an undue advantage.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; While strict compliance to the rules of procedure is desired, liberal
interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of
justice.In Republic and Camacho, we ruled that the purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations
for enforcing a judgment or action is to prevent a party from sleeping on his rights. Far from sleeping on
its rights, respondent pursued its claim by persistently seeking the execution of the RTCs final judgment
of November 6, 1991. It would be unjust to frustrate respondents effort to collect payment from
petitioner on sheer technicality. While strict compliance to the rules of procedure is desired, liberal
interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of
justice. [Central Surety and Insurance Company vs. Planters Products, Inc., 517 SCRA 651(2007)]





Remedial Law; Execution; Levy; It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable only
against property unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor; Property belonging to third persons
cannot be levied upon.It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable only against
property unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. In the execution of a money judgment, the
sheriff must first make a demand on the obligor for payment of the full amount stated in the writ of
execution. Property belonging to third persons cannot be levied upon. Moreover, the levy upon the
properties of the judgment obligor may be had by the executing sheriff if the judgment obligor cannot
pay all or part of the full amount stated in the writ of execution. If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or
part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or other mode acceptable to the judgment obligee,
the judgment obligor is given the option to immediately choose which of his property or part thereof,
not otherwise exempt from execution, may be levied upon sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If the
judgment obligor does not exercise the option immediately, or when he is absent or cannot be located,
he waives such right, and the sheriff can now first levy his personal
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
346

346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sarmiento vs. Mendiola
properties, if any, and then the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for
the judgment.
Same; Same; The sheriff cannot and should not be the one to determine which property to levy if the
judgment obligor cannot immediately pay because it is the judgment obligor who is given the option to
choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon to satisfy the judgment.Therefore, the
sheriff cannot and should not be the one to determine which property to levy if the judgment obligor
cannot immediately pay because it is the judgment obligor who is given the option to choose which
property or part thereof may be levied upon to satisfy the judgment. Since Crispin is not the owner of
the subject vehicle that respondent levied on, it was improper for respondent to have enforced the writ
of execution on a property that did not belong to Crispin, the judgment debtor/obligor. Respondent
evidently failed to perform his duty with utmost diligence.
Administrative Law; Sheriffs; The sheriff, as an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a final
judgment depends, must necessarily be circumspect and proper in his behavior.It is undisputed that
the most difficult phase of any proceeding is the execution of judgment. The officer charged with this
delicate task is the sheriff. The sheriff, as an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a final
judgment depends, must necessarily be circumspect and proper in his behavior. Execution is the fruit
and end of the suit and is the life of the judgment. He is to execute the directives of the court therein
strictly in accordance with the letter thereof and without any deviation therefrom.
Same; Same; Sheriffs have the obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to
the best of their abilities.Thus, sheriffs play an important part in the administration of justice. In view
of their exalted position, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity
of the court. In Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, 482 SCRA 265 (2006), we ruled that sheriffs have the
obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their abilities. They
must always hold inviolate and invigorate the tenet that a public office is a public trust.
Same; Misconduct; Definition of Misconduct.In Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Fernandez,
437 SCRA 81 (2004), the Court defined misconduct as any unlawful conduct, on the part of a person
concerned in the administration of justice, prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right
347

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 15, 2010
347
Sarmiento vs. Mendiola
determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. [Sarmiento vs. Mendiola, 638 SCRA 345(2010)]





Law of the Case; The doctrine of law of the case means that whatever is once irrevocably established
as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the
law of the case so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of
the case before the court.Although rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction acting
within its authority, neither one of said decisions can, however, be invoked as law of the case insofar as
the other case is concerned. The doctrine of law of the case means that whatever is once irrevocably
established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case
continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on
which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.
Labor Law; Collective Bargaining Agreements; Article 253 of the Labor Code mandates the parties to
keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing
agreement during the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the old Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.Article 253 mandates the parties to
keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing
agreement during the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the old CBA and/or until a new agreement
is reached by the parties. In the same manner that it does not provide for any exception nor
qualification on which economic provisions
_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
236

236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union (GMC-ILU) vs. General Milling Corporation
of the existing agreement are to retain its force and effect, the law does not distinguish between a CBA
duly agreed upon by the parties and an imposed CBA like the one under consideration.
Waiver; Although generally looked upon with disfavor, it cannot be gainsaid that legitimate waivers that
represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers claims should be so respected by the Court
as the law between the parties.Although generally looked upon with disfavor, it cannot be gainsaid
that legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers claims should
be so respected by the Court as the law between the parties. It is only where there is clear proof that
the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are
unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.
Administrative Proceedings; Burden of Proof; Evidence; In administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings
like those conducted before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the standard of proof is
substantial evidence which is understood to be more than just a scintilla or such amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.In administrative
or quasi-judicial proceedings like those conducted before the NLRC, the standard of proof is substantial
evidence which is understood to be more than just a scintilla or such amount of relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Since it does not mean just any
evidence in the record of the case for, otherwise, no finding of fact would be wanting in basis, the test to
be applied is whether a reasonable mind, after considering all the relevant evidence in the record of a
case, would accept the findings of fact as adequate. [General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor
Union (GMC-ILU) vs. General Milling Corporation, 652 SCRA 235(2011)]

You might also like